It's not a sim if you can fly it or drive it with a gamepad. Go play with the kiddies.
ORLY?
But it's a SIM if you can fly it with a joystick that has throttle + twist rudder, right? Unlike a 360 controller which almost perfectly functions like an RC controller used to, you know, fly real planes. I guess that makes all RC flyers ARCADE flyers instead.
It's not a sim if you can fly it or drive it with a gamepad. Go play with the kiddies.
Utter bollox. And I mean that in a friendly way.
Armed forces have flown UAVs with XBOX gamepads. Controllers and input devices have NOTHING to do with the math or underlying complexity inside simulation games. I've flown Black Shark with a wireless 360 controller, does that make it any less of a sim?
We mapped the front seat gunnery controls of the Longbow Apache onto one (the real aircraft has more thumbsticks so it was kind of difficult to squeeze on) but the morphology is similar.
I think you meant to say, if it doesn't have differential equations, it's not a sim. I suspect it does though. You can take advanced flight models and apply lots of dampening to make them easy to use (even detect if the device IS a joypad and adapt the flight model accordingly).
History repeats itself. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to dredge up the past forum posts about how FSX will be a game. I specifically remember when they announced the missions concept, there were howls of hate directed at MS. But now, FSX is apparently a gold standard simulator! Who'd have thought?
Short memories.
Were those forum posts from people that have actually played the game?
I've played flight, i could care less about the NDA on this one because people need to know what direction this crap is going. It is a full blown console game. You could easily have this game on the xbox 360, and in fact i'd guess it'll show up there eventually. The planes are stiff and almost impossible to stall or make anything bad happen. To further prove the fact that this is a game and not a sim, the VERY FIRST mission in the game is to use some hot air balloons as cones and weave in and out of them to show you know how to steer the plane. My first impression was "i can't beleive how retardedly simple it is to fly this, it must be on simple flight model". So i went into the options to turn on all the advanced stuff. There really isn't any. There is ONE option that really toggles anything and after going back into the game i couldn't even tell the difference.
The graphics are only a slight improvement over FSX but that could change. All in all this "game" is nothing more than a cash shop for microsoft to nickel and dime everyone dumb enough to download this free to play travesty to the long and distinguished history of the flight simulator series. The cash shop for this thing is built right into the front end of the game. I can't fathom who this game is going to appeal to, the old FSX crowd is going to hate it as it's not moddable and isn't realistic and only has Hawaii which kicks out everyone that likes to fly the big jets. And the console crowds going to hate it because it's still "boring" there's nothing to shoot.
I have been reading threads and posts about ms flight from the announcement on the release date. All I keep reading is from Dev's. that produce addon stuff for FSX. Each one is concerned (and knows)that flight will take away from there buying folks.So yes these Dev's. are going to knock the flight product. What gets me,is that these Dev's that produce addons for FSX won't build there own product to keep there funding going.
NXZT Phantom case,core i7-975 oc 4.2,6gbcrucal ballistics ram at 1900 mhz,radeon HD5850 windows 7
I have flown FSX, IL2, Flaming Cliffs and be ready to hear that...Falcon BMS with the xbox 360 controller.
The gamepad IS NOT as accurate as a joystick but you still can fly it. With Falcon I was able to use the dpad and right stick to control radar azimuth and lock on planes and ground units.
Following same logic a real F-16 pilot is flying in "arcade mode" because he is using fly by wire
Also people using remote control similar to a gamepad for RC planes and they are decently accurate.
The first parodia scene from the film"Bunker" for Microsoft Flight Simulator X, created by DReaperF4 August 10, 2006.Original removed for copyright infringement.
I don't think people are understanding the point behind ms and flight.MS has already said there are levels of game play. This said I would assume that level 1 would be easy and the higher the level the more it would need to play it, like the highest level would include click-able switches and realistic flight controls.But this is what all the companies are doing today.A sample of this is DCS Black shark. It caters to both novice and hardcore playing.Even BF3 has a softcore and hardcore mode.
But at the end we get the core game for free and from there can make better judgment.
NXZT Phantom case,core i7-975 oc 4.2,6gbcrucal ballistics ram at 1900 mhz,radeon HD5850 windows 7
I have been reading threads and posts about ms flight from the announcement on the release date. All I keep reading is from Dev's. that produce addon stuff for FSX. Each one is concerned (and knows)that flight will take away from there buying folks.So yes these Dev's. are going to knock the flight product. What gets me,is that these Dev's that produce addons for FSX won't build there own product to keep there funding going.
I very much doubt that they are really worried about all of their loyal customers ditching them for Flight. I'm sure MS will fail to resist the temptation to over-charge for POS add-ons in a market without competition. Will they get millions of DL's? Sure, the price is right for the base Flight software. Will they sell millions of dollars in add-ons? Probably not.
Most of those devs are upset because MS called them during Flight's Alpha,and shooed them away when they realized they could eat their lunch instead. In short: MS want's not just a slice, but ALL of the third party content pie, and killed the goose laying the golden egg to get it.
Also, according to a post from an Orbx dev, there's no sense in starting over, the FSX engine apparently is the best of it's type ever built. The reason it performs (relatively) poorly is because it was never shown the love it deserved. IIRC, they post said that Orbx had done the math, and it would require millions in start up cash to begin from scratch on a competing platform. With LM in a position to possibly go retail with Prepar3d anyway, why risk it?
My Rig:i5-3570k @ 4.2 GHZ W/ Corsair Hydro H110 Cooler / Asus Sabertooth Z77 Mobo / GTX 1070/ 16 Gigs DDR3 RAM / A Few SSDs, and a Bunch of HDDs / All held together by: Corsair C70 Case
Other Assets Deployed: HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog SN#22621/CH Throttle Quad/MFG Crosswind Pedals SN#0004 TrackIR TIR 5 w/ TrackClip Pro Simpit: Obutto R3VOLUTION
Mmmm. Fires up FS9 and FSPassengers, or FSCargo, and flies around.
Weeeeee! Still a great sim, and to me, still better than FSX.
My personal licensing agreement: In exchange for my hard-earned cash for your product, you agree to the following terms: No part of my hardware may be used as a mechanism to verify or reverify my economical patronage. My receipt will serve that purpose. If you disagree with this license, you may return my money to me, and I'll return your product.
MS figured out that the only people making money with FSX were doing the add-ons so they want to make sure they get all that revenue. Thanks, but i will stick to FSX.
Without breaking any rules I can't say what it's like. But I am with it . It's not FSX, but I think thats been covered in just about every other post about Flight.
Hopefully it wont be like other times microsoft has engaged other companies, put them under an NDA and at some point stopped talking to them. More than once there has been a lawsuit when shunned company finds MS has copied their work thanks to all the talks they had under NDA.
Without breaking any rules I can't say what it's like. But I am with it . It's not FSX, but I think thats been covered in just about every other post about Flight.
In support of Harry's observation, I'll re-quote myself from a different thread:
Rather than viewing Flight as a successor to FSX (or the MS Flight Simulator series in general), it's better to regard it as a separate but still valid sibling. It DOES lack some functionality that I really hope turns up in the final release (e.g. TrackIR support) but I'm actually finding elements of the overall game structure really compelling, engaging and fun.
Yes, I said "fun".
It's absolutely not going to satisfy the PMDG or A2A crowd just yet, but it's an entirely valid flight sim in its own right. FSX still exists and no one's taking it away from you. MS Flight is shooting for different goals and isn't actually too far off the mark from my perspective.
Perhaps the best way of looking at it is that MS Flight is Flaming Cliffs to FSX's DCS A-10. I appreciate that the analogy isn't perfect, but at least it hopefully gives another perspective.
MS Flight is not going to be for everyone, but it has its place and it's a perfectly valid one. I don't expect the waves of scorn and righteous indignation to stop any time soon (in fact I expect them to get worse and worse, because that's the nature of our passionate and divisive community) but personally think they're somewhat misguided and missing the wider point.
Just at the moment, I'm perfectly happy for the MS Flight beta to take its share of my free time from "full real" RoF, Black Shark and DCS Warthog.
