Search the Community

After spending about four hours of actual game time in Microsoft Flight, I have realized that is it not so bad provided one does not think of it in the same light as Microsoft Flight Simulator. For starters, it is a game pure and simple and does not need to be compared to MSFS, but rather to other games that involve flying, think of it more in terms of Flight Unlimited. It does not and never was supposed to replace MSFS, it is just another flying game, the fact that Microsoft made it does not matter . For me personally, it will not replace FSX anytime soon, but that does not mean they cannot co-exist (I did not get rid of Modern Warfare when I got Grand Theft Auto, they do not conflict with each other). With that out of the way, it is easier to see it for what it is; a solid start. Personally there is just not enough available yet for me to form a true opionion of the game, or to purchase DLC. The initial offering of aircraft is less-than-specatular, the Maule being the front runner in terms of what is offered. I personally don't care for the Icon, I think any plane that does not have an ADI as standard equipment, is really not something anyone should be flying (I live under the flight path of a GA airport, and seriously after I found that out I was disturbed, I don't want someone with vertigo to crash into my house because they didn't have any intrument to tell the if they were level or not). I think that Flight can be worth playing at times when I feel like just "jumping in", and the missions are ok, albeit repetative. I just hope that MS works very, very quickly with the DLC, with absolutely zero customizablity the game will lose it's shine. Nobody can add anything unless MS gives it to them, this is not good for those people that are always looking for something new to fly. That and it is known in the gaming world that moddable games have a higher replay value, thus they tend to stick around a bit longer. Even if they wanted to lock out the devs, they could still allow moderated user content. The other thing that makes me nervous is the inaccessiblity of the devs, people can and do have good ideas, but are they listening? It does not seem like it. I do not wish failure on Flight, quite the opposite. I simply hope that Microsoft's vision is around long enough for it to take shape, as of right now they are walking a gaming tight-rope.

So, Out of curiosity and an abundance of impatience over the seemingly-forever-near-release of Aerosoft's new F-14 Tomcat (which I'll probably wait on for awhile and assess how much work needs to be done post-release on this no-doubt complex aircraft), I picked up P3Dv2.1 today (latest), and tootled around in it for awhile. The opaque ATC comms window is an absolute non-starter for me. Sigh. Aside from that, though, some nice graphics features, and it's good to see the ORBX and REX stuff in there purely from a visuals point of view. Graphically, there are definitely changes and improvements with DX10 and DX11 just not obtainable with DX9. Aside from that, though, I think it'll be a good, long while before I consider abandoning FSX for P3D. Clearly lots of progress is being made on the latter, but in a lot of subtle ways, from interface design to overall control, look and feel, there's still a lot of work to do. I'll be happy to keep an eye on it but count me as a definite, decisive vote for the FSX versions of any add-ons upcoming for the future, if there has to be a choice (nice that many developers are not forcing one on us). And I continue to thoroughly enjoy an FS engine I am very familiar with; there are a lot of subtleties I've gotten control over and can adjust dynamically for different situations, and at present I'm not seeing any kind of quantum leap in experience (just a small leap in graphics, really) with P3D. Keep up the good work, though, and best of luck!

This may be an unpopular opinion, and the word not allowed are going to pour hate on me, but I'll put it out there anyway: Real-World Flying is full of critical flaws and should never have been released in its current state. Right off the bat, control assignments are a joke. There's a single default control configuration. No custom key assignments. No sensitivity adjustment. And I wasn't able to get a single one of my existing controllers to work. What were the devs smoking? Did anyone actually ever try to use this sorry excuse for a sim? Next up: Weather. Incredibly, there's exactly one weather theme. One! Admittedly, it evolves dynamically and seems reasonably realistic, but there's zero ability to customize anything. No cloud layers, wind layers, visibility controls, nothing. You can't even set time of day. I mean, this is super basic stuff. Did none of the beta testers ever notice this was missing? Seriously? Then there's the aircraft. Normally, I'd qualify my opinions by saying that I'm not checked out in any of the types I'm about to comment on, but there are tons of issues here that no one can tell me are realistic. The A340 is woefully underpowered. No exaggeration, it only manages to climb thanks to the curvature of the earth. Stalls in the Tomahawk are a joke. Every single stall seems to devolve into a spin - there's no way that would ever get certificated. And don't get me started on the 737 MAX. The trim system is super buggy - it keeps winding in nose down trim on me until it becomes virtually uncontrollable. The most ridiculous bit though is the pricing. The basic game is free, but it only allows you to spectate - not a single aircraft is included. DLC pricing is outrageous. Even the most basic aircraft will set you back thousands of dollars. That much money surely buys you a lifelong right to fly your aircraft, right? Wrong! Every year, you're made to pay thousands of dollars in "annual" fees just for the privilege of continuing to fly an aircraft you already own! And it doesn't stop there. Every time you fill the tanks, say goodbye to another couple hundred bucks or more. It's the most blatant money grab I've seen in any game (no, I'm not willing to call this pile of junk a sim). Sorry, but I've had it. Until the devs reconsider their pricing and fix the many, many egregious flaws, I'm going back to MSFS.

Hello everyone, I realize the title may anger a lot of you, but that was not the point. After reading some comments on a comparison video, I just felt the need to post this. Take a look at the comments on this comparison of PMDGs old 747, and iflys new 747. I was shocked to find people stubbornly defending PMDGs 10 year old product! Actually saying that it is superior to a 2014 product of quite high quality! Many of them insisted that the PMDG 747 had higher quality systems, and some even tried to say that the exterior modeling and VC was better! When they likely had never bought the product or even seen a good video of it! Why? Simply because it is PMDG. Now, PMDG obviously make extremely good products, but do you really think that a product that old will still be "the best"? Their response to my explanation of the products age: "Wait for the V2, it will be out in a few months!" Well, it has been two years, and where is the V2? NOWHERE! Because PMDG are taking their time to make a good product for us to enjoy! Correct me if I am wrong, but in 2014, PMDG were still working on the modeling! Had someone bought the ifly 747 when it was released (albeit with its numerous shortcomings and bugs...), they would have gotten their moneys worth by now, even if they did choose to buy PMDGs (quite possibly) "better" version. But its not only PMDG that has ######, ifly has their fair share too! When I posted several notable issues with the ifly 747 that I had observed from videos, I was called a "troll"! I could go on and on with examples, but I will leave it here. So what are your thoughts? Do we need to be more open as a community to other products? Or am I blatantly lying? One thing I do not want is to start a flamewar, so please lets have a constructive discussion, about this topic.

Hello. I'm working on a research project for my high school class on government policy. The focus is around the regulations around the D.C. SFRA, and it's impact on national security, aviation business, air traffic controllers, and the pilots who fly in the airspace. If you have any general knowledge or greater about the D.C. SFRA, Please visit the following link and respond to the short 2 minute poll. This will provide data for a high school research project. Thank You. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1aORHSE6bKa1KgdUsRewf1UElhkvVbZtFkoo7b_w9-Uo/viewform

Hello all! I have for a long time been into flightsimming, but as I at the moment have a laptop, I can only fly default FSX with no addons :( So through the past year or so I have saved up for a upgrade and I finally have enough money :lol: I was wondering if you could help me get the right parts? I already have put together a list of components, but I would very much like to hear your opinions :rolleyes: My budget is around 1600-1700 $ I plan on flying the FSL 320-X and the PMDG 777, maybe the NGX also, with a few addon airports, REX and no AI traffic. CPU = i5 3570K Cooler = Noctua NH-D14 Motherboard = ASRock Z77 Extreme3 GPU = MSI GeForce GTX 670 Power Edition OC - 2GB GDDR5 RAM = G.Skill 8GB DDR3 2133MHz (2x4)SNIPER CL9 Case = Corsair Carbide Series 500R PSU = Corsair TX 650W PSU OS = Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 HDD = Western Digital® Desktop Green 1TB I'm thinking of overclocking the CPU to about 4.5 GHz. Is that realistic? I also want to use the computer for other things than FSX, like Battlefield 3, Aerofly FS, F1 2012 but i believe that they will run nicely on a pc like this? And finally do X-Plane have different requirements than FSX? Thanks a lot in advance! :lol: :lol:

As the title implies, I have an Intel Pentium B950 running at @2.10Ghz. I'm pretty sure the NGX would murder my processor if I attempted to run the beautiful plane. I've came here asking your opinion on the NGX on a 2.10Ghz and what you think should be the minimum processor speed that could smoothly run this plane. (I'm aware with what the website says about minimum requirements)