dtrjones

Hi guys, I like the Maule, but I find this plane to be very twitchy, and sometimes difficult to land in moderately bad weather. The other planes seem to be more stable so I'm not sure what this could be. I've changed my dead zones for my Microsoft Sidewinder joystick to around 10% but I still find it difficult to control and land.Have any of you guys experianced this at all?Cheers,Dave.

I'm not interested in any airliner less complex than NGX, and I really doubt they can/know how to make such simulation.

Microsoft developed FSX, the mothership! You could say NGX is just content. Without all the parameterisations allowed for the simulation to operate in NGX products from PMDG wouldn't exist in the first place. I think PDMG would be the first to congratulate Microsoft in particular the Ex ACES team for creating an environment which has spawned such enthralling simulations and scenary over the last 6 years or so and continues to do so from tallented 3PDs like PMDG and Orbx

You've evidently never heard of, or believed in, consumer rights.Cheers,- jahman.

Awesome!! So what you going to do, drag MS and PMDG in a room together point a turbo prop at there faces and demand they make sweet music, uh maybe I've just read your statement wrong, but that aint going to work :( !

Yes, thanks Joshua (I'm guessing you're not Joshua Howard lol!)I don't think theres too many suprises here, most of us guessed the rest of Hawaii would be available plus maybe a couple planes. The pricing information is interesting but of course this is how Microsoft pay the wages. Also interesting was the 150,000 who signed up, nay sayers or not, if this brings in a lot more new Flight Sim fans then that has to be a good thing, and I'm sure the hardcore community will benefit from this overall interest further down the line.Just a word on X-Plane, it's a great piece of simulation, but you're really left to your own devices. It's a hard product to grasp for a newbie in Flight Similation. Flight is perfect because it provides young flyers with a purpose and aspiration to learn and keep on learning until one day they could then move to a sandbox environment and progress there simulation activities from there. I really do feel a lot of wannabe Simulation fans really are put off by the learning curve and Flight will really help them.Ok for the hardcore Simulation community this kinda sucks in terms of progress what we have with FSX, but don't be foolled to think that Flight isn't a viable flying alternative even if only in small doses. From what I understand Flight is built from FSX and therefore retains the full fidelity of the simulation FSX has, we just need to wait for the bigger planes to arrive which will happen when 3PD get in on the act further down the line.Cheers,Dave.

The official Flight promotional video"[Microsoft Flight is] specially designed for players who are used to a mouse and keyboard."

'Specially designed for players' doesn't mean the game is designed specifically around the mouse and keyboard! As Arwen has indicated you are spreading misinformation, afterall Microsoft also states that Flight can be used with Flight controls as well.Somebody with the latest CH products would be laughed at by somebody who had paid 1000's on a home simulator, so it's not so easy to discriminate individuals on there choice of controller especially when they maybe can't afford a better one...I actually thought the implementation Microsoft has performed in Flight from the video I've seen actually allowed for a fairly accurate level of control with the mouse and keyboard which is some effort. Remember Microsoft are also attempting to bring Flight to the masses here so this is a clever technique to use as the buyer doesn't need to pay for any additional controls to get started.For the sim enthusiast, options would exist to make Flight more challanging as well, and I'd be suprised if they didn't support % of current FSX flight controllers as well. EDIT: thats smiley was supposed to be eighty percent, i guess i need to be careful what i write! :Rolling Eyes:Cheers,Dave.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who has been in this hobby for any period of time, that MS wants to own the social content and the marketing value that comes with it. What implications does that have for the AVSIM's, Flightsim.com's, etc.? If we don't try to bring FLIGHT customers into our little corner of the hobby via sites like AVSIM, we will have lost in the longer term.

Hi Tom, you're right.I think Microsoft's deserve more respect than some people are giving hear. Clearly Flight is targetted at wider demographic than the hobbiest Flight Sim community and that FlightSIM and AVSIM are here to support the needs of largly hobbiest.On the face of it, it sounds like we're talking about two distinct groups of people. But Flight could be an important stepping stone to providing a means to build up enough interest in Flight Simulation to then go out and buy a more mature simulation from say Eagle Dynamics or Laminar Research.I truely believe FlightSIM and AVSIM are hear for the love of the Flight Simulation period. Otherwise where do you draw the line at an enthusiast? Are you any less of an enthusiast if you've only flown FSX default for the last 5 years? Or if you only like VFR in the Cessna, well thats what you get in Flight but this could change overtime to provide more challenging situations.Flight may not have a direct benefit to an AVSIM or FlightSIM at the moment, but definately won't do it any harm. In fact I can only see building a larger Flight Simulation community maybe of newbies being a good thing. Why do I say Flight Simulation, well because at it's core Flight is still is a Flight Simulator, many people forget or refuse to acknowledge this. Strip away all the aerocaches, aids and achievements and you're left at it's most challanging, an invoking and entertaining Flight Simulation experiance which I can see growing over time.I think it would be a lost opportunity if AVSIM were to drop interest in Flight now to build a new generation of enthusiasts and interest in Flight Simulation albeit with possibly a younger generation. This market could easily propergate interest to other services provided by AVSIM aided (hopefully) by the community at large, just by keeping a forum running. And who knows what the Microsoft Flight product could still develop into in the future.The concern I have with the way interest in gaming is going, if you dismiss titles like Microsoft Flight (which at least has some Flight Simulation DNA) and Take on Helicoptors then you may lose the Flight Simulation community all together and that would mean hard times for the likes of AVSIM or FlightSIM as there will be no titles to bring any form of Flight Simulation to the masses.Cheers,Dave.

You know it looks bad now for the hardcore simmer and I have to agree with the reaction, but I can't say it's all doom and gloom. Not sure why people think Flight is dumbed down because there are gaming elements and may be an easier way to fly if you choose it? How can you say Flight won't be a challenge to hard core simmers do you have proof? No. It also looks a hel'ov a lot of fun too!The real issue is of course the FS legacy of a solid platform with 3rd party content appears to have ended which would be a terrible shame if this was to be true.However with the model Microsoft have chosen I think progress could turn out as follows (speculation!)...1. Microsoft releases Flight for free (Hawaii big island) with an aim to make it as accessible as possible.2. Microsoft releases remaining Hawaii islands and additional GA planes and missions.3. Microsoft releases patch 1 for Flight4. Microsoft releases small Jets, Americas Scenery Pack and three cities, Seatle, Chicago and NY + missions.5. Microsoft releases patch 2 for Flight6. Microsoft releases Europe Scenery Pack, cites London and Madrid and additional planes and missions.7. Microsoft releases patch 3 for Flight and long awaited Flight SDKThe bottom line is Microsoft wants to see how this will all develop - I don't think they know what will happen, content will be produced to support the demand but I think Microsoft will be flexible. Also with the store aspect I can see Microsoft releases regular patches and content some of which will be free and eventually I see an SDK.There's still no reason why the Flight platform can't be changed if user demand is as such and I can see this progressing much the same way as maybe Rise of Flight developes. I really do think this will inevitably be released to the wider developement community but Microsoft may just want to play its cards closer to its chest for now.Remember Microsoft goals in PC Pilot was to make 1. Flight accessible but also 2. To future revisions more practical to implement which is why I strongly believe Microsoft will revise Flight and therefore you'll probably not see a Flight 2 for some while. It's tough on the hardcore simmers out there, but be patient and lets see how the dust settles.Cheers,Dave.

I still have his original copy of Jane's Longbow (and MSFS4 on a floppy disk somewhere, and MFS9, and MSFS2002, and Gunship, and Apache/Havoc, and Falcon 4, and Enemy Engaged). I didn't say that all hope was lost, or that flightsims were history. But I'm pretty sure that I've witnessed a rather large decline.

Hehehe, my personal favourite back in the day was F19 Stealth Fighter, low and slow, avoid the radars and land safely haha... Thanks for those memories.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/71813/microsoft-flight-is-free-to-play-launching-in-springScroll to the bottom of the article. Much better quality and shows a lot more of Flight.Cheers,Dave.

Ok there have been bigger news stories today, but lost in translation is the superb set of screenshots Microsoft delivered for the January 2012 set.Screenshot 1 - External Icon A5Beautiful rendition of the soon to be released Icon A5 showing delightful lighting and crisp accuracy and detail on the landclass and textures - better than anything I've seen before outside photoreal scenery. Just look at the accuracy of the grass and river!Screenshot 2 - Cockpit Icon A5Clean lines and outstanding design - you just know the lighting will work everywhere in this fully realised reflective plush cockpit. A real joy to behold and a lot of fun it will be to land in water and tarmac. Speaking of tarmac have you ever seen as detailed a rendition of the gravelly stuff as depicted in this shot. Clearly the Icon A5 sits closer to the ground and you get a great feel for this with the spectacular details shown.Screenshot 3 - External Icon A5It appears the the sky textures and terrain soak in the ambient lighting for dawn and dusk settings creating what will be some fantastic transitional affects. Subtle lighting on the fusalage gives this a classy feel.Screenshot 4 - External Icon A5 near runwayThe beautifully drawn exteria of the Icon A5 with the superb reflection is shown again here. The crisp textures and detailing of the runway again apparent. What I like here is the depth of the scenery objects in the background which for me makes this a whole lot more realistic than Aerofly FS at typical GA altitudes but breathtaking when close to landing or taking off. To add to this we've already seen a lot of custom scenery which will be exciting to explore.Screenshot 5 - External Coastline during dawn / duskAgain the coherent lighting really gives this a great feeling that the rendering engine understands how to interpret all aspects of the scenery at any given time.Screenshot 6 - External Shot of the StearmanWonderful wonderful attention to detail on the external model of the Stearman! But also the landclass is also amazing in this shot. Look at the shallow ridges on the hill slope behind the plane, it superbly depicts the cut away rock formation at exactly the points you'd expect. Screenshot 7 - External Shot of the StearmanI really like this shot!!!! Brings me back to the original video Microsoft used for the launch. The soft shadows on the warmly lit body of the plane provides a sensational dusk affect which would change as the sun appears / disapears (see previous screenshots for confirmation)So there not a bad set.Flight is really exciting me now and this is all free. Planes have been carefully selected to fly within the confines of the Hawaii islands but you don't even get all the islands for free. However this is a world sim in the waiting. Scenery will be released if enough people support Flight outside of Hawaii and guess what you'll need the heavy irons the reach them...Until then I'm going to look forward to discovering Hawaii, bring it on!Cheers,Dave.

You guys are going to hate me for this post sorry, would be interested in Brendon (HughesMDflyer4) view on this with the screenshot comparions done so far.We've seen in Flight as a whole that the colour palatte used is much more natural than in the past and it's been a big bug bearer for me to see some of the current crop of simulators completely nail the natural colour look and to see FSX and Flight use odd colours that makes the images completely un-natural.An example of simulators IMHO with good use of natural colours would be A10 Warthog and Wings of Prey where the terain and sky colours look natural but also match up and don't look bolted together by a rendering engine.In isolation for the three images posted, I would say X-Plane 10 has better natural colours overall than FSX and Flight. The images do appear to be taken at different times of the day which makes comparisons unfair. The Flight image in this case is one of the few images which for me the colours simply do not work. I couldn't say the same for X-Plane but I've seen some X-Plane images as well where the colours look off, but more often than not they look really good.FSX colour palette is awful, strange water colours, clouds, terrain, often colours are not only wrong but tend to be over saturated and some times the whole lot looks a complete mess. Flight is moving in the right direction but still some images look odd and I'll have to admit it but X-Planes colour palette definately has the edge in this regards for me.I'm in the belief that Flight textures and renderings are still being worked on and certainly some of the earlier images could be using textures which are in the process of being updated, so I wouldn't want to draw any firm conclusions right now. Fight has some really nice effects and I hope the concious effort which is obvously apparent to use more natural colours will continue and we'll have a product which will look great where ever or when ever we choose to fly.Cheers,Dave.

hey syousef, really good satire! your knowledge of MS and FSX is scary :( i think january's anouncement could bust a few myths tho...Cheers,Dave.

Microsoft knows that as soon as the public beta starts things are going to start leaking like a sieve (no matter what the NDA says). That's probably why they invited a handful of select members of the FS community to a preview and within the first week of January some information will be made publicly available in an attempt to head off the leaks. http://forum.avsim.n...ft-flight-news/

+1 good post! I'm sure the annoucement in Jan will soften any potential breakages of an NDA, lets hope that won't be the case. I'm also hoping Jan's little message might include a delivery date now that the beta programme is about to start. Makes sense to me and just adds to the excitement.

At the end of the day, Flight will cost nothing more than a decent payware plane and scenery pack.Some of you may argue that Flight may not be as good as either which could be true but when compared to any addon's you can't deny Flight will offer tremendous value for money.So it seems sensible that even the sceptical amongst us could buy Flight as a Hawaii scenery pack with a few planes thrown in and just enjoy what it has to offer. Then move back to FS9 / FSX when desired.Theres no reason not to give Flight ago unless you're really really poor, and somehow with the rigs and software additions people talk about here that's something which I'll find very hard to believe.Cheers,Dave.

Nice one Mark!! When it came to the crunch I voted yes and no respectively to the first two questions, you know I'm really not sure now, we're this close to the beta it might just be that we will all have to get used to a smaller world LOL! I don't for a minute though believe that geographically the rest of the world will be closed off, I just have my doubts that it's be as populated as FSX default is...Cheers,Dave.

As I can see the XP user will be stock with DX9, Vista and Window 7 user will probably enjoy DX10 maybe DX11 (check box), now about performance, start adding complex sceneries or airplanes and the fps will go down, as you can see MS said something about the LOW and HIGH settings...is there some EXTREMELY HIGH settings like in FSX....do you see where I'm going with this?

DX11 (checkbox) LMAO! I seriously hope DX11 isn't a checkbox, I'm confident though we'll see an mature DX implementation which ever version they choose.Was FSX ever performant from day one in high ? I'm only now running high on my computer and I've got a i7 sandybridge. IMHO theres no doubt performance will be much better in this release, but if you (can) choose insane levels of details and want a smooth flight then good luck :)Cheers,Dave.

Moreover if FSX is any guide, today's computers will most likely not be able to handle it well.

Hi Sam, I think your comments are mostly fair, I'm not sure about you holding off from Flight for another couple of years though - Why?Regarding today's PC not handling Flight, it's a bit disrespectful of Microsoft's information and claim to build a Simulator for todays generation of PC's. Also you've completely ignored the impact of a 'gaming' world (awards, acheviements, richer online play) adding to the fidelity and diversity the current Flight sim experiance,i.e.1) I don't necessary implicate gaming tendancies to be anti hardcore - I'm sure there'll be interest for experienced flyers. 2) the possibility exists that Flight could actually add something new and therefore be viable alongside FSX not instead of it.I'm with you on not upgrading - I think a Sandybridge 2600 i7 should keep me afloat for a few years anyway :) we just have completely different reasons for keeping our rigs intact. I don't have many add on's though and not much other hardware but I'll ask you again, can you really hold off from buying Flight, why not just treat it as another add on and use it in isolation, I think we put too much emphasis on moving platform when a lot of simmers probably have or have had more than one Flight simulator installed on the PC at anyone time.Happy Flying.Cheers,Dave.

I have been against Flight from the first screenshots of September 2010

Yeah thanks Mark, nothing like a bit of Christmas cheer LOL! Look, it's a real shame you feel this way, for me the screenshots and videos have been a revelation. Looking at X-Plane for example there is a huge different in the 3D trees in Flight than the flat textures shown in X-Plane. I think the beta will show that to a lot of people and they'll think wow!Anyway how much can anyone get from a screenshot and video, what do we really know about Flight - not a great deal. If we were just looking at visuals I'd say the use of colours in Flight still has a tendancy to be un-natural, some of the tones used for X-Plane particularly the water and tarain shown in the distance look great, some of the Flight screenshots look great others less so, but can I be happy or disapointed with Flight based on this, no way! Infact because I know where they have come from and what the usual high quality of the overall package will be, I can only be excited about the possibilities.Cheers,Dave.

Yes, actually I would like to see this thread closed and the OP warned. This thread should never have been started here. This is (suppose to be) the MS Flight Forum. There is a perfectly good X Plane forum to discuss X Plane.

Mark I thought the X-Plane post was very relevent to Flight Simmers and if you're on *ANY* of the AVSIM forums then I'm guessing you have an interest in simming, some people have made this post out to be way bigger that it is, a simple line to inform users a competing product has a demo, it's nothing more or nothing less than that.You've turn this into a personal attack which is the BEST way of alerting a moderator to YOUR presence, not of the OP. So good luck with that.Cheers,Dave.

I think you took my post out of context. I was just pointing out that Flight is not the death of the franchise, the cancelling of FS11 was. What we can say for certain is they have taken the old engine and have improved the visuals and apparently the performance, I just used the analogy of an old friend. I meant no negativity at all in that post. I agree with your thoughts, we really have too little to draw any conclusions but everyone's entitled to their own view, whether it be positive, negative or somewhere in between.You say that you don't like people filling in the blanks but is it the fact that they are filling in the blanks or is it that they are filling them in with scenarios and opinions you disagree with?What if this forum was full of only positive posts about what Flight will be, would you then still be saying they are dragging down the quality of the forum? It's fundamental to human nature to come up with the "worst case scenario" when dealing with uncertainty and there is plenty of uncertainty with Flight. Just keep in mind they are just opinions, Flight will be what it will be and opinions will change.Just my opinion of course.

+1 Great post Fsau!

I should clarify - reflective water is a must (and what I prefer if having to choose), but they need to figure out the angles at which the reflection gives way to transparency. IMO for shallow water the reflected sky is too severe. At that viewing angle (and water depth) I believe there should be a lot more apparent transparency, though I doubt it takes physical water depth into account. I realize the shot has a low sun, but I think there needs to be a tradeoff.

Hi, I think the transparency in the first image is a fake effect and included in the texturing used for water surrounding coastlines. Reflections haven't been implemented yet. Maybe the reflective qualities will be toned down when in overcast or choppy conditions but we've yet to see any reflection in the water so it's impossible to say right now.I can't explain the different in behaviour in the apparent lack of 'transparency' for the high settings but I suspect water is still being worked on and a more consistent water rendering will emerge also showing reflections at a later stage in the development. I'm pretty sure of this because you'll know when reflections are included as there'll be a ton of screenshots released showing this effect. I had considered Microsoft could drop the reflection effect but I don't think this will happen, it's just not ready yet to be shown.Personally I would have liked Microsoft to have adopted the Prepar3D approach and render the water using true water depth at least around coastal areas. It would have made such affects much easier to implement IMHO.Cheers,Dave.

Cars nd trucks are drawing shadows too, real time shadows....just amazing..

That looks like Police Quest from the 80' haha, good old Sierra On-Line!

I think the picture with the road in it is actually a 3d model of a landmark that happens to have a high detail road/bridge included with it rather than a new general road system for Flight, I do hope I am wrong but I doubt it.

Yes good spot, those raised reinforced sides are indeed indicative of a beam or arch bridge so could well be a model, still it's very impressive and smooth. I like the way the model soaks up the ambient light ala x-plane global lighting as well, neat!

I'm sorry but after reading that I have to wonder why anybody takes published minimum requirements seriously......Those min specs for FSX couldn't put out a frame per second on ultra low settings if the whole world depended on it.The last time published specs mattered was when they said "3D video card required" or "200 MHz Pentium 2 or better."

Thats exactly the point, Microsoft are claiming that with these minimum specs in Flight you can still get reasonable performance albeit in low detail.

Ha Ha..I teach 19 year olds. I feel old at 33. That's never good.

Haha, Goran said to thank you for putting him near the big 50!