Flight can be serious if you want it to be.

[jomni]

So I bought the Maul. It's got good instrumentation although there's no autopilot. I loaded up a short cargo mission. First time, my plane was too heavy and stalled and crashed after I took off.
The second time around I adjusted the fuel so that it is relatively light and the distance is quite short anyway.

Now for the serious stuff. I created a flight plan in FSCommander although it is overkill as I only have the big island installed. My flight plan only has one VOR in between the departure and arrival airport. But I decided to try doing VOR navigation in this "kid's" game. :) The Maul in Flight have detailed checklists that will guide you for each phase of flight. I started the plane from a cold configuration. Flew using prescribe propeller rpm and fuel mixture. Tuned radios to the VOR and adjusted the course in the HSI. Followed landing speeds and flaps configuration. After landing, I parked the plane and shut it off manually. It was a very satisfying experience.

I think if MS provided this plane for free, some serious pilots will give Flight a bit of a chance.

[jomni]

Hi,

How is the flight planner within Flight?

How many planes were landing and taking off with you?

What was the real time weather like?

What was the ATC chatter sounding like?

Did you try and do a push-back from your parking spot?

How did you find the directions for taxiing to your departure runway?

Hehe. Of course we know these elements are missing. But the flying aspect from start up to shut down can be done seriously instead of thinking it's just a kid's game.
Actually the stuff you mentioned above is also a bit missing or badly implemented in X-Plane and maybe the early iterations of MSFS.
X-Plane fans will just write it off and say that the flying part is the most important aspect of the sim. Of course MSFS has been spoiled by the wealth of features in our favorite sims.

[azzaro]

What's with all this hair-splitting. They're all games!
Serious flying is a real world activity involving real planes, real expense and real danger.
Do we need to have this constant pissing contest about who's simulator is better? — Bob

[JSkorna]

So serious football is real football, real broken bones, and a real paycheck?

[Flyfalcons]

If you really feel like it, you could get out of your aircraft and do a walk around before starting up. Not that it'll be very satisfying when you know you aren't going to find any loose bolts or hydraulic leaks.

[Capt_Flappers]

What's with all this hair-splitting. They're all games!
Serious flying is a real world activity involving real planes, real expense and real danger.
Do we need to have this constant pissing contest about who's simulator is better? — Bob

you are right, real world flying involves real planes, real expense, and real danger, and requires lots of training. and flight simulators can be part of that training. i have seen numerous posts in these forums from real world pilots, including some posts from real world pilots that used flight sim to fly a route that they had not flown before but they knew they were about to, and flew it 1st in the sim to get familiar with it. true, flight sim is not real world flying, but it is not really a game either, in games you get points. i see nothing wrong with having this "pissing contest" as you call it, it lets microsoft know that many people are not happy with this Flight game and perhaps they will endeavor to improve it or redesign it to something we would like. That should be the goal of any company, to make a product that their customers want.

[azzaro]

To put it less contentiously, I am suggesting we might want to stop playing mine is 'bigger than yours' — politely share views and help each other solve problems with any given piece of software or hardware we might chose to occupy ourselves with. I would like to think these forums can be a positive and constructive place. Nuff said. Flame away. — Bob

[jmcauley]

[QUOTE=jomni;1662042]So I bought the Maul. It's got good instrumentation although there's no autopilot. I loaded up a short cargo mission. First time, my plane was too heavy and stalled and crashed after I took off.
The second time around I adjusted the fuel so that it is relatively light and the distance is quite short anyway.


My mission was longer, with not enough Fuel to make it all the way.


1. I attempted to look for an airport that had Fuel, the "M" key would not work.
2. I landed at 3 Airports in flight, there was no Fuel Available.
3. My C0-pilot critisized me for not filing a flight plan to re-fuel. I could not see a way to do this.
4. I ran out of fuel and crashed.
5. I can no longer use the Maule because when I attempt to start a new mission, there is no fuel.

Other than that it was a great flight :)

Any suggestions?


Thanks

[jeroen79]

IMO, 'simulation' and 'game' are not opposite ends of the same scale.
Rather they are two different things.
One is 'play' vs 'work' and the other is 'reality' vs 'fantasy'.

A simulation should reproduce reality. (or parts of it)
What is done with this reproduction is up to the user but will not reduce the realism of the simulation.

If I play around with a simulator or even do foolish and stupid things with it then it is still a simulator as it will tell me what the results of my actions would be in the real world.

[angels355]

What's with all this hair-splitting. They're all games!
Serious flying is a real world activity involving real planes, real expense and real danger.
Do we need to have this constant pissing contest about who's simulator is better? — Bob

It's not whose flight simulator is better, it's why did they downgrade FS to a game that has less complexity than FS98. We are paying customers. Joshua Howard says himself that we "would do anything" for this hobby. How about tar and feather Howard?

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/images/icons/icon1.png http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by JSkorna http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?p=1662057#post1662057)
Hi,

How is the flight planner within Flight?

How many planes were landing and taking off with you?

What was the real time weather like?

What was the ATC chatter sounding like?

Did you try and do a push-back from your parking spot?

How did you find the directions for taxiing to your departure runway?

*******

I'm totaly amazed that Mr Korna (former nightclub entertainer, and film star) would say this. These are briefly the problems we have with flight. There's a lot of debate because Flight looks nice, is stable and new, and the only new action in town. However if you were to take this debate back to 1998 we can see that it is obviously a mistake to downgrade FS like this. Would downgrading FS98 down to one island and one plane (two planes if you jump through hoops, conditioning for further complex sales), would that have made FS98 a better product? Oh, and take away the SDK too. In hindsight would we say that those zillions of 3rd party aircraft and scenery files were a terrible mistake and blight on the hobby? Like, maybe we would have been better off with only half a dozen aircraft and scenery files over two years while MS tells us a story? (BTW, Game Studio games tell a story, that's a good thing in games such as Halo, but not appropriate for a FS.) Obvioulsy not, and in the present day people who see past the glitter agree. If they sell us on Flight, it's for the purpose of keeping us quiet while they mass market the free base of Flight. That's right MS is free basing, it's what I suspected all along. That could be good for our hobby if FSNext were already being sold, and Flight fans who try it out and want more could go to FSNext. Better yet, if Flight were the base package of FSNext, where we could get the whole world and all of the flight simulator features AND BUTTONS, that would be the best of both worlds. Flight could be included with every computer for sale, and if they wanted the full flight simulator they buy and download that. But MS doesn't want to do that, they don't want to give us the whole world and flight simulator, they are a game studio and view things completely differently. It's not about a realistic world of aviation to the nth degree, it's about simple short term entertainment. Fly the Icon to Maui, steal all the hubcaps you can, load them into the Icon and fly back to Hilo with the booty, then, "let's go get a hamburger!" Short term entertainment. If you were working your way up the organized crime/mafia ladder that might be long term entertainment but that's another story.

Do you guys think that FSX could use another service pack? They should, for increased stability and bug fixes, better performance, people are still having problems with it. As mentioned Howard has said that we are dedicated fans that would do anything for our hobby. I feel that we have been seriously neglected. Kicked to the curb also.

Speaking of problems both Flight and FSX both stopped running completely when I upgraded W8 DP to CP, they were in the Windows Old folder along with FS9. I linked the exe's of each to the W8 start menu and FS9 was the only one that still functioned. Tried moving the entire Microsoft Games folder into the new Programs x86 folder but no results. I think that Flight and FSX have a lot of security layers that don't allow them to function if conditions are not perfect, even if their displacement was caused by MS.

For an advanced cutting edge game in the tradition of FS with brilliant graphics and performance, we'd also need 64 bit, full multithreading, and DX11/12, I mean that's just a given!

[ramjett]

Hi Jomni and all,

I suspect you are right. If the Maule were one of the trial planes I think it would be less arcade-like to many new users. I haven't flown it but in a you-tube video the panel looks complete and very good. I'm not ready to buy another plane for flight but that may be what it takes to let me feel immersed and engaged. Keep posting your discoveries and experiences and Flight may yet get off the ground with FSers.

good flights, Cal

[scruffyduck]

5 - select the Maule in the hangar. Double click on the Fuel Pump Icon.

[AllanD]

There's a lot of interesting comments on this forum and its hard not to agree with both sides of the debate. I am a real pilot and also have been involved with and interested in flight simulators (domestic and commercial) for a long time. Sometimes I just want to have some fun with simulators and that might bias my view a bit, but I also enjoy the freedom of being able to fly a full IFR flight plan in a complex aircraft model with no more real responsibility than to ensure I don't spill my coffee on my laptop! I think there are a couple of points worth remembering though:

1. The new release of Flight is the initial offering of a completely new product by a new team of developers. It is not from the FS95>FS98>FS2002>FS2004>FSX range. Great though that range of products may have been in many ways, they were also quite clunky, carrying over issues of bad engineering which were inherited from one generation to the next. There was room for improvement and starting again with a clean slate using updated coding ideas is commendable. Sure, the initial offering might not have the complexity that everybody wants, but we do still have FSX for that and Microsoft know that it will be the independent developers that will cater for the specific niche interests of different groups. Give it time and there is bound to be a lot of interesting progress with Flight. From the free download offering what we can see so far is that the core simulation engine is very good (it runs very smoothly on my modest laptop), the fresh new interface ideas are a welcome improvement and the content is adequately immersive to give people something to do to stimulate their interest in the product. It is understandable that they have scaled it so that it is appealing to a wider audience that includes the casual gamer, and its actually quite rewarding that it includes "gameplay" at that level that lets you choose a series of fun pursuits and activities from the start. Sure, its not the same as filing a flight plan and flying LHR to JFK but it wont be long before that comes, along with sdk's, third party content and all that jazz.

2. Sadly its a fact of modern life that there are vastly more people using FSX than have ever bought a copy. So even though its frustrating that the package features are reduced, it's understandable that Microsoft need to find a new way to sell this kind of product to us without bankrupting themselves in the process, and starting off making the core product free is a nice way to go. It is totally unrealistic in the current marketplace to finance the research, development and production of a new product as complex as FSX from scratch which can then simply be pirated an a grand scale. Whatever your personal view on this, it would be financial suicide for a commercial producer not to find a way around this. So the flight marketplace is a sensible way to go and it could also be the saviour of some of the struggling independents who have many more users than they ever took cash for.

Like most people I have had the entire world in one sim or another for over a decade... but I still havent flown over most of it. Maybe this new way of doing things will get us out of the habit of having more toys than we need! ;)

[Thaellar243]

What's with all this hair-splitting. They're all games!
Serious flying is a real world activity involving real planes, real expense and real danger.
Do we need to have this constant pissing contest about who's simulator is better? — Bob

We wanted a simulator. They gave us an arcade game.

[win98]

We wanted a simulator. They gave us an arcade game.

If at this point you still think Flight is just an arcade, then you either:

1) Did not use it beyond 5 min with flight assist turned off
2) Intentionally in denial to act like the rest of so called "hard-core simmers" feeling like you somehow belong to the elite group
3) Should go back fly FSX/FS9 and stop wasting time posting here.

[Capt_Flappers]

If at this point you still think Flight is just an arcade, then you either:

1) Did not use it beyond 5 min with flight assist turned off
2) Intentionally in denial to act like the rest of so called "hard-core simmers" feeling like you somehow belong to the elite group
3) Should go back fly FSX/FS9 and stop wasting time posting here.

who died and left you arbiter of all that is and is not arcade? people have different views all the time about the same item/topic etc etc. I am not in denial of anything, I eagerly awaited Flight to be released, I visited the website for it often to see new screenies and vids, and I was very impressed with what I saw and couldn't wait to try it out, and I was utterly unimpressed despite giving it ample time to win me over. So I did go back to FS9, but I don't see it as a waste of my time posting here, as I have heard from many years back that folks at MS involved in flightsim visit these website forums. So, along with the email I sent to MS about Flight, I post here as well from time to time, and if enough people post negative comments/reviews of Flight, MS will take notice and will then perhaps endeavor to pursue FS11.

[loki]

So, along with the email I sent to MS about Flight, I post here as well from time to time, and if enough people post negative comments/reviews of Flight, MS will take notice and will then perhaps endeavor to pursue FS11.

The only thing that will change MS' mind are product sales. Posts in forums are not a very accurate way to gauge much of anything as it the negative side is almost always guaranteed to be far better represented than the positive. Especially in the case of a product like this that is aimed at a wider market than the hard core segment.

[Capt_Flappers]

The only thing that will change MS' mind are product sales. Posts in forums are not a very accurate way to gauge much of anything as it the negative side is almost always guaranteed to be far better represented than the positive. Especially in the case of a product like this that is aimed at a wider market than the hard core segment.

true, one little thing I left out.... if product sales are slow, as I suspect they will be (but probably we will never know since MS has a monopoly on DLC), then I suspect MS will be paying attention to these forums to find out why sales are so slow and will then endeavor to make a product that their customers are asking for, or they may just say the heck with it and kill it altogether.

[ricardo_NY1]

The only thing that will change MS' mind are product sales. Posts in forums are not a very accurate way to gauge much of anything as it the negative side is almost always guaranteed to be far better represented than the positive. Especially in the case of a product like this that is aimed at a wider market than the hard core segment.
I'm honestly wondering Loki when it is that the majority of flight simulator users became known as "Hardcore enthusiasts" or simply "Hardcore". Does shooting an ILS approach with a payware aircraft and some AI qualify someone for those titles? Or learning to program an FMC? I don't think so. I think those are elements that many flight simulator users try to accomplish. I'm starting to think that it's now become a catchy monicker for anyone who is not interested in a game like Pilotwings. I think 99% of us have now been labeled a hardcore enthusiast because we would like to be able to do things like define weather settings, or use VATSIM........or anything else FlLIGHT does not offer.

I'll say it's a crock.........why not just call the hardcore enthusiasts the name they'd really like to call us........"That audience we'd rather not deal with", which is most of us.

Now..........if you have the front section of a Boeing 737 in your garage and are ready to hook it up to Project Magenta......you are a Hardcore enthusiast!

Otherwise, we're still the same people who use features you would come to expect from a flight simulation software.

The equivalent of this is like calling plane spotters hardcore simply because they get up early to go plane spotting or purchased an expensive camera to take photos with. That is not hardcore.......that is what plane spotters do. Now if you get one guy that jumps the fence and runs within 50 feet of the runway to snap a photo of an incoming 747, then that is HARDCORE!

[Capt_Flappers]

I'm honestly wondering Loki when it is that the majority of flight simulator users became known as "Hardcore enthusiasts" or simply "Hardcore". Does shooting an ILS approach with a payware aircraft and some AI qualify someone for those titles? Or learning to program an FMC? I don't think so. I think those are elements that many flight simulator users try to accomplish. I'm starting to think that it's now become a catchy monicker for anyone who is not interested in a game like Pilotwings. I think 99% of us have now been labeled a hardcore enthusiast because we would like to be able to do things like define weather settings, or use VATSIM........or anything else FlLIGHT does not offer.

I'll say it's a crock.........why not just call the hardcore enthusiasts the name they'd really like to call us........The audience we'd rather not deal with", which is most of us.

Now..........if you have the front section of a Boeing 737 in your garage and are ready to hook it up to Project Magenta......you are a Hardcore enthusiast!

Otherwise, we're still the same people who use features you would come to expect from a flight simulation software.

The equivalent of this is like calling plane spotters hardcore simply because they get up early to go plane spotting or purchased an expensive camera to take photos with. That is not hardcore.......that is what plane spotters do. Now if you get one guy that jumps the fence and runs within 50 feet of the runway to snap a photo of an incoming 747, then that is HARDCORE!

well said

[jomni]

hard-core also hard·core (härdkôr, -kr)
adj.

1. Intensely loyal; die-hard: a hard-core secessionist; a hard-core golfer. ----> People who are very loyal to their favorite sim and simming methods.

2. Stubbornly resistant to improvement or change: hard-core poverty. ----> People who don't want to accept Flight because of definition #1.

3. Extremely graphic or explicit: hard-core pornography. ----> People who gets an orgasim when flying PMDG in all it's detailed glory.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hard-core

[ricardo_NY1]

1. Intensely loyal; die-hard: a hard-core secessionist; a hard-core golfer. ----> People who are very loyal to their favorite sim and simming methods.

A good majority of people here take breaks or vacations from MSFS. I think it's safe to say most know that it is a hobby, not a life priority. I would not call that intensely loyal or die-hardish. We all have favorite things aside sims and we all have favorite methods from which side of the face we shave first to how we hold a pencil........none of those make us intensely loyal or die hards.

2. Stubbornly resistant to improvement or change: hard-core poverty. ----> People who don't want to accept Flight

Calling FLIGHT an improvement is a long shot. What exactly is the improvement that is being met with stubbornness? The only major improvement I can think of is MS' improved control of finances.

3. Extremely graphic or explicit: hard-core pornography. ----> People who gets an orgasim when flying PMDG in all it's detailed glory.

Yikes.

I am now going to go "Play" FS9.........I will do some barrel rolls under a bridge using the chase view in clear weather so I don't get called a "Hardcore" flight simmer. As an extra measure, I may also remove my WOAI installations. Having a lot of airlines as AI may lead to me being branded as a Die Hard flight simmer and that is something I' don't want to deal with. Not with all the improvements of Microsoft FLIGHT. After I turn my computer off, I will say to myself several times how complicated and annoying it is to have all these 3PD add-ons and what a mess it has made out of my flight simming experience.

[Capt_Flappers]

2. Stubbornly resistant to improvement or change: hard-core poverty. ----> People who don't want to accept Flight because of definition #1.


i get it, you like Flight..... does that mean that every FS enthusiast that does not share your view on Flight doesn't get it or is stubborn or something? some people will like it, some won't. Actually, from what I have been seeing all around the web about Flight, most don't, so you appear to be in the minority. That's cool, hope you have lots of fun with it. But I seriously don't get this attitude you have that if everybody doesn't have the same view of Flight as you that there is something wrong with that person. Seriously, what's the high and mighty attitude all about?

[ricardo_NY1]

i get it, you like Flight..... does that mean that every FS enthusiast that does not share your view on Flight doesn't get it or is stubborn or something? some people will like it, some won't. Actually, from what I have been seeing all around the web about Flight, most don't, so you appear to be in the minority. That's cool, hope you have lots of fun with it. But I seriously don't get this attitude you have that if everybody doesn't have the same view of Flight as you that there is something wrong with that person. Seriously, what's the high and mighty attitude all about?

I don't think he's associating his view with #1, I think he's misinterpreting the very point I tried to make............which is the idea that what would constitute normal use of a flight simulation software in no way warrants a die-hard or hardcore label. Joshua Howard, who I consider a total outsider to this hobby has this exact point of view. Someone should ask him exactly what it is he thinks someone would use a flight simulation software for. In his world, he'll probably try to convince you that flight simulation software is too complicated and it should be morphed into software that would make it fun to find aerocaches. This is the equivalent of telling plane spotters that their hobby is too complicated and that they should stick to taking photos of only one airline and those photos should only be taken when the aircraft is parked at the gate. And in order to not make a mess of the flash cards used, only sony memory sticks/sony cameras should be used. That is the mentality that we all seem to be adopting in describing ourselves.

I say NO to this mentality. I reckon we are normal users. There is nothing hardcore about wanting to do the things we do when we use MSFS. That is what a flight simulation software should be about. We don't need gauges or guidance from the outside, who would naturally think anyone willing to sit behind a desk flying a simulated flight is a nut to start with.

[jomni]

Guys, lighten up. My post was a joke. I just looked the definiton up from the dictionary and parodied the very sad state of our community.
Sorry if anyone is offended. But I'm really getting tired of all this division and will keep my mouth shut.

Mods can lock this thread.

[ricardo_NY1]

Guys, lighten up. My post was a joke. I just looked the definiton up from the dictionary and parodied the very sad state of our community.
Sorry if anyone is offended. But I'm really getting tired of all this division and will keep my mouth shut.

Mods can lock this thread.
Nothing wrong with division, we do have FS9/FSX/XP crowds that are somewhat divided. Arguing over FLIGHT is definitely getting old. I picked up the humor in your post, but elaborated on it in order to further the point I was trying to make, which is that labeling what would be the majority of us "Hardcore" for the previously stated reasons is pretty ridiculous, an outsider's term and what seems to have become a monicker for the users of our community thanks to the perceptions of people like Joshua Howard, who know nothing about this hobby. community or aviation in general.

I think we as a community should not accept these labels...........they are the product of outsiders and people who do not understand the hobby. And an all too convenient label by the media to describe what are perfectly sound activities in many hobbies. It is relatively easy to define someone as hardcore when they do something you wouldn't normally do or when they do it in a way you wouldn't or don't agree with.

Some people may take pride in being labeled hardcore.........I don't, particularly from an outside source who knows nothing about the hobby and is probably really trying to call you an addict who is taking something to the extreme and/or would like to simplify your hobby ala Howard. If he ever gets a hold of Mechwarrior, there are only going to be 3 mechs, 2 weapons, 3 maps and a simple cockpit. All those weapons would be too complicated. Flushing coolant on overheat would be too HARDCORE! People should start "What if Joshua got his hands on _______________" threads. I'd like to see Nels respond to a What if Joshua got his hands on the next MS Train Simulator!

[angels355]

Hey just thought I would say something nice for a second, jomni is actually a very nice guy. When I was told to get lost from the MF forum for being too critical over what a mistake MF is, I went over to the X-Plane forum. Jomni and MdMax helped me out answering a lot of questions about XP10. Jomni knows a lot about XP10, and also, my God, what has been happening to the real world fleet of 747's. I read 747 manuals as part of my casual MSFS hobby. Right now I'm on a nonstop RTW flight from Honolulu to Honolulu, my 401st flight around the world. I'm up to around 17,000 hours roughly. Oh, also, made it to Top Gun heehee, I'm so modest can hardly contain myself.

It's sad that MSGS had to demonize MSFS to get their new jobs managing Flight in the first place. Remember there was a lot of managerial arguing, someone was demonizing MSFS just before the fall of the Aces. It seems like an outgrowth of that mentality that loyal hobbyists like us are demonized for not liking Flight, because it is no good! Tired of building 3d models, painting them, tweaking every aspect of a sim aircraft? Tired of dealing with simulated real world things like ATC? Use Flight, it makes things so much easier...... la la la la la, weeeee, free of realism, c'mon guys, let's go pick up some aerocache! Yeah, say that to Marines and see what happens! :rolleyes:

Any way, better not comment any further because all my views have been well documented for the past two weeks. We should probably all avoid the truth, especially about what Flight is and MS viewpoints. When they say they are aiming at a wider audience, that probably means that they don't care what we ordinary users of MSFS think, or if we buy it or not. It's only natural that we would be demonized because we know what a real FS is, and know the difference when we're offered a stripped to the bone flying game offered at high prices. There is a lot of talk about the future potential of Flight, but they don't talk to us, it is all a carrot dangling in front of us. And they really seem opposed to what we want, a real flight simulator. I've been told by members here that Flight has more RW pilots of all ranks than the Aces ever had. In my opinion, that's because they messed up incredibly badly by firing the Aces and ruining the code they were writing. Phil Taylor former head of the Aces said that code goes cold after six months. The waste, mismanagement, demonizing what MSFS was and its' users, could that be called a "bonfire of the vanities?" People and businesses mess up incredibly badly all the time, it's very sad, but what can be done about it? If we speak up we're just told to "move on". One major option we can employ is "do nothing", attorneys offer that as a viable option all the time. Seems tragic to let that incredible Flight Simulator franchise go down the drain because of bad management choices, but really what can be done? There was this prominent person (not me) who was an expert on social networks like Tweat (spelling?), Facebook, and others. He would actually lecture on the power of social networks, as in complaining about services for example. He was actually a bit scary even though he was prominent and a pillar of society, I really didn't agree with his methods or philosophy at all. He said he went to an establishment that serves pleasant things to visitors while encouraging them to buy their pleasant stuff. He didn't like their services at all, felt short changed for some crazy reason. He Tweated the living soybeans out of them, he said it went around the world 27 or so times and all fire and brimstone was released upon that establishment. As the Bible says, "He that lives by the sword dies by the sword!" Not surprisingly, that person was really paronoid, he would use google to scan the social networks to, this is so rich, to find out if anyone was complaining about him on the social networks. "Ooooh lordy lord!" --Blazing Saddles But is that really effective? Someone here was saying that Flight's own Facebook page was receiving a ton of bad comments, same on this forum and avsim, these are all natural comments, nothing coerced. Myself, I've encouraged people to use Flight if they enjoy it, or buy Alaska if they want to. And remember this is not our forum, and private enterprises are not required to sponsor free speech in forums or forum freedom. Loki was mentioning that MS ignores such bad comments feeling they are the minority, and looks more at the sales figures. As I've said before MS doesn't listen to us, and because we know what a real flight simulator is like, probably don't want to listen to us to point out how lacking Flight is.

The real question is, can MSFS be saved? And how could it be done? MS really really is off the deep end and they don't care, and don't care if MSFS ever comes back.

I have to go back to my flying before I get uninvited again, I am 3 hours 29 minutes way from my next way point, I'm about 20 hours into my flight. You can check it out if you want. http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?246398-Flyin-round-Honolulu

[ricardo_NY1]

I read 747 manuals as part of my casual MSFS hobby.[/url]

You have just admitted to being a die-hard, hard-core Microsoft Flight Simulator user.

[jomni]

You have just admitted to being a die-hard, hard-core Microsoft Flight Simulator user.

Lol. Peace to all! Lets put the matter to rest.

[angels355]

You have just admitted to being a die-hard, hard-core Microsoft Flight Simulator user.

Yeah but haven't purchased $1500 of flight training materials like some hardcore fool....yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl4SRVXgGiI

[AllanD]

Hi guys,

Just replying in the trend of this thread and some of the latter comments, without quoting anybody directly - I think it is too early to write the epitaph on Flight, so far all we have been given is the core engine "fancied up" with a basic interface that draws in as wide an audience as possible... all the bells and whistles will come later and you'll be able to get whatever you want to make it work for you. I agree that from the context of previously getting products like FSX with the whole planet on a disk, Flight looks very oversimplified, but the core flight modelling system is much better than FSX - if you don't believe me, spend half a day experimenting with crosswind landings on the harder Stearman Landing Challenges in Flight, then replicate it in FSX - and if you're not sure. go rent a Cessna 152 on a mildly windy day from your local club and bash it round the circuit for an hour, then come back and compare the two flight models again.

Lets face it, even with all its bells and whistles, was FSX good enough out of the box for most people? No. It wasn't. It had its own airliners but they were dumbed down so your mum could fly them, so everybody needed to buy new ones to get the right detail; it had its own ATC but it was so cheesy people had to use VATSIM or third party add ons that sounded half way convincing; it had its own scenery but most places were bland and inaccurate, so if you wanted to fly anywhere more than once you had to buy a new scenery pack that didn't remind you of FS5.1; It could update your weather but you'd have to buy FSUIPC if you didn't want to replicate a clear air turbulence incident every 15 mins (which even some payware a/c couldn't cope with)...

You get my point. FSX is still the defacto armchair product for anything that might revise your instrument navigation skills, but it's too early to presume that Flight wont be able to do this. It's clear that this is the direction MS are going in, everybody will be able to download the free core engine, but you'll have to go buy the extra bits you want to make it the simulator you desire - which will doubtless include your favourite third party add ons from PMDG, Wilco, etc. etc. - just like the way Apple's App Store or Google Marketplace work. I think it is extremely unlikely that they will go back to the old "packaging" system of trying to put everything on a DVD and calling it FS11 - the software industry has moved away from that way of doing things whether we like it or not. I think if we want things like whole earth scenery, advanced interface, ATC, community third party product availability, we probably ought to make enthusiastic suggestions to Microsoft to help them pick between the list of things they already have sitting on the backburner. Protests at town hall on the other hand will probably throw the baby out with the bathwater! Just my 0.314140 USD$ worth!

[mith]

The real question is, can MSFS be saved? And how could it be done? MS really really is off the deep end and they don't care, and don't care if MSFS ever comes back.

I respectively have to disagree with you on this one. Compared to MS.. we are simpletons. What MS has done with Flight is genius! Instead of hitting us with a $70 product (like FSX), they're going to hit us up for our $'s a little at a time. You've heard the story about putting a frog in a pot. If you raise the temp all at once, the frog will jump out of the pot... however, if you SLOWLY raise the temp, the frog will never realize he's (or she) is being cooked!

You can sell a product to 2 people for $1.00... or you can sell a product to a million people for 50¢.... which makes more money? MS is spot-on with Flight in regards to marketing.... I suspect they're going to cash in on this one.... (even though it's not necessarily what us regular simmers want.....)

[fxsttcb]

...hitting us with a $70 product (like FSX) The big issue most folks, myself included, have, is you can buy FSX directly from MS @ $29.95 and it includes the entire planet. As they say "the World is Your Oyster".

With Flight only, I still can't get through a long session without the inevitible hang, but, that is probably hardware related and I expect they will get those issues sorted.
When I can consistently fly it, with performance equal to my FSX install, I'll consider getting out my wallet.

Flight looks great to me, but, isn't big enough(yet) to keep my interest for long periods like it's predecessors. I spend hours on end, simming.
Hopefully their DLC will start coming much faster(every couple months for areas/regions is too long to wait).
Maybe(Hopeful!) we'll get lucky after it starts to mature and they'll offer bundles of regions at a discounted rate. By that time, maybe, I'll have it running seamlessly...Don

[mith]

I still can't get through a long session without the inevitible hang, but, that is probably hardware related and I expect they will get those issues sorted.
When I can consistently fly it, with performance equal to my FSX install, I'll consider getting out my wallet.


Strangely enough, with my high-end system (GTS 560ti vid, 7200 hd, 8 gigs ram, quad 3.0 cpu intel mb etc, I can't fly from San Dimas to Vegas without FSX stopping giving me an out of memory error. Really? FSX has it's bugs as does Flight. I can't blame my hardware because it's high-end..... so to say FSX is better bug wise... I have to disagree...

[angels355]

I respectively have to disagree with you on this one. Compared to MS.. we are simpletons. What MS has done with Flight is genius! Instead of hitting us with a $70 product (like FSX), they're going to hit us up for our $'s a little at a time. You've heard the story about putting a frog in a pot. If you raise the temp all at once, the frog will jump out of the pot... however, if you SLOWLY raise the temp, the frog will never realize he's (or she) is being cooked!

You can sell a product to 2 people for $1.00... or you can sell a product to a million people for 50¢.... which makes more money? MS is spot-on with Flight in regards to marketing.... I suspect they're going to cash in on this one.... (even though it's not necessarily what us regular simmers want.....)

Respectfully also, and haven't had a chance to say that I like your posts, Flight is less, and costs more. And jumping through their hoops for addons and expansions, I feel as if I would be hardwired into their sales and marketing department like Minority Report. And despite such hardwiring MS does not listen to feedback at all. My flights are mostly heavy metal and round the world flights with ATC. Now I realize FS ATC is really lacking and want to get something better from a THIRD party because following FS ATC to the letter you can't do SIDS and STARS. I have a sample book on loan to me from an ETOPS collection, the SIDS and STARS are extremely complicated at some airports, it's not just vectoring, it is also throttle level and varying altitude.

To me Flight is a dangling carrot that's going to take years if ever to mature. I'm going to look over the Alaska package and see if it interests me. GTA 5 may interest me more, and I'm not a shooter type of player. No pun intended. I actually plan to get GTA 5, but wait and see on Flight AK. They are similar games.

Flight is a large departure from FS because it is not produced by the Aces. FS is a full world realistic flight simulation package, we had it made when the Aces were in charge. The GS however concentrates on small compartmentalized regions where you explore and do structured or free sandbox adventures, often moving up in rank. FS is simply a simulated world, and simulated aircraft, you have complete freedom with the emphasis on realism. Reminds me of soft drinks versus tea and coffee, some people actually like soft drinks, eeeww! Tea and coffee are actually good for you.

FS is a real hobby, exactly the same as RC aircraft or other vehicles. The aircraft can be hand built from the ground up, hand painted, flown with precision with exacting controls, realistic weather and wind and all other parameters. Lets's face it, some very nice loyal customer enthusiasts are heartbroken or worse with disappointment over the change. This change occurred because of heated arguments among MS managers about the direction of the FS franchise. FS was earning a good profit, as it has for 29 years, but that was not enough it had to have big sales like other GS blockbusters. The argument was won by GS managers who took it over. And we see the obvious difference.

My priority is the full PMDG collection, plus many other addons such as the Cessna 340, and many others. Then Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, GTA 5, Outerra, XP 10. Then I'll look at Flight AK and see if it interests me. I did one of the Flight VOR challenges using FS9 on an excellent system and a 757. I didn't see that much difference in terrain and enjoyed the FS9 experience more.

[fxsttcb]

...I can't blame my hardware because it's high-end..... so to say FSX is better bug wise...I have a mediocre system, at best, and yes, FSX on my rig flies for hours and hours without issue. Not so with Flight, but, I am far from giving up on that. :p

With FSX I did a custom install, added the uiautomationcore.dll fix(happily the only "bug" that has affected me), and keep my sliders down more than I would like to.
After that, I've learned to trade settings depending on the type of flying I'm doing. Oh, I can push it 'til I get an OOM, but, I now know what not to do, so, I don't.
It's no different than tweaking the sliders in Flight. Unfortunately, so far, Min-Max on any, or all, I still can't keep it going consistently.
'tis frustrating when the visuals hang and the rest just goes on. Usually resulting in a crash if, and when, it does recover. :rolleyes:

Without doing much of anything but load FSX, select my plane, and environment, I can then fly until I decide to stop.
I simply want Flight to do the same. I am that impressed with all the little niceties it has to offer.

I've delved deeply into Flight's inner workings and it definitely has the potential to be as serious as we are used to with FS9/FSX and I want it to run good because of that.
I'm hoping that MS has solid plans to follow up on all the little goodies I've found embedded within. :cool::cool: ...Don

[angels355]

Strangely enough, with my high-end system (GTS 560ti vid, 7200 hd, 8 gigs ram, quad 3.0 cpu intel mb etc, I can't fly from San Dimas to Vegas without FSX stopping giving me an out of memory error. Really? FSX has it's bugs as does Flight. I can't blame my hardware because it's high-end..... so to say FSX is better bug wise... I have to disagree...


Do you have SP1 and SP2? I have FSX Gold, my computer is less than yours

DG314PR Intel mobo
Q9450 2.66 ghz Core 2 Quad 12 mb L2 cache
2 x 120 mm fans on a giant Coolermaster 612 copper tube aluminum fin heatsink
4 gb Kingston ram PC2 8500
Asus 559 Ti 1 gb vram, 196 video processors
2 x WD Caviar Blue 500 gb HDD's, am thinking of adding a 1 TB WD Caviar Black HDD to put the sims on, Windows on the 500 gb Caviar Blue HDD
750 Watt OCZ modular PSU

And yet FSX Gold is silky smooth. It runs smoother than my FS9 on a 3.2 ghz P4. Before Win 8 CP displaced FSX so now it won't run w/o a reinstall (MS's own software installed properly, disrupted the delicate security features of FSX, now I have to reinstall it and hopefully won't have to call for an activation. Flight also would not run afterwards either, probably disrupted all that delicate coin machine software).

Flight is also silky smooth. But as a product it would have been a real contender, in fact the only contender if it had been made by the Aces in the FS format.

There is no comparison however between the game play. "I'm a peacock! I gotta fly!" --movie "The Other Guys" Flight is a constrained world, and living with it is like doing your grocery shopping at the University coin machine food dispensers. The food is not very good, it is costly, want more you gotta pay for it, and it's only coming from one kitchen.....and they don't have a famous chef!

One of the managers at MS after the Aces closed said, "You want the next Flight Simulator? Buy X-Plane!" Did MS in all their many green glowing folds of brain tissue consider that by leaving this huge hole open for people to go into X-Plane, that XP10 for example runs better on Linux? I only use Windows for FS, and scanning negative film. I already have Linux installed and ready to go for XP10. I only need Windows for FS, and Battlefield 3, etc. Windows is my game platform. There is a Linux distro with 400 games, haven't checked it out.

When I was shopping for a computer before the recessions, I was shopping for a Mac. It was my love of flying and FS that brought me back to Windows. Did MS ever consider that aspect?

[azzaro]

Don, I feel your pain. I am having similar problems with Train Simulator 2012. It worked perfectly at first, then came the inevitable "software upgrade", now I can't run it full screen without a system crash. The support staff tried everything they could think of with no success.
I am also having problems with Pinnacle 15 video editing software, which, again support had no luck with. (not for lack of trying)
My computer is now 4+ years old and I fear a major upgrade is nigh! But, then again, I have teenage daughters... :confused: — Bob

[angels355]

Don, I feel your pain. I am having similar problems with Train Simulator 2012. It worked perfectly at first, then came the inevitable "software upgrade", now I can't run it full screen without a system crash. The support staff tried everything they could think of with no success.
I am also having problems with Pinnacle 15 video editing software, which, again support had no luck with. (not for lack of trying)
My computer is now 4+ years old and I fear a major upgrade is nigh! But, then again, I have teenage daughters... :confused: — Bob

Trust me, take them shopping, it is the only answer. I've seen it in the real world. Despite blizzard conditions and light fashionable clothing and shoes(?) they are drawn to the shopping mall..... "It is their DEStiny!" --Darth Vadar. And just ask them, they'll tell you, your computer situation is a distant 10th in priority.

[alaskancrab]

angel355: you are going to be waiting awhile for GTAV ,unless you plan to buy an Xbox or PS3. They won't start work on a PC version until after those two versions ship, if at all, with DLC being so hot these days :0.

[angels355]

angel355: you are going to be waiting awhile for GTAV ,unless you plan to buy an Xbox or PS3. They won't start work on a PC version until after those two versions ship, if at all, with DLC being so hot these days :0.

Noooooo! Tell me it's not true!!! Arrrrrrrrgh!

Really, how am I going to learn the street smarts from GTA5? Guess I'll have to buy GTA4. Did you know that Crysis 2 has a real world application? The Aussie Navy use the engine for special training, something about jumping out of a helo w/ a rope maybe.

Can still get Battlefield 3, 64 bit hehe. DX11 oooh yeah!

I think I'm going to finish building this computer w/ FSX Gold and FS9 on it, then build an Ivy Bridge system for FSX Gold, FS9, BF3, and the others, probably on an 1155 mobo. Yesterday found out that the socket 2011 Ivy Bridge processors will be delayed for 12 to 15 months! Because AMD is not giving them enough competition! I should buy an AMD Bulldozer!