MS Flight P40

http://store.steampowered.com/app/203876/

It's DLC and costs $7, but no cockpit included.

No..you are reading the sentence wrong..

No Cockpit view is included.

The No Cockpit view is a feature that is included..

It's for the console crowd who prefer not to see a cockpit at all

Well, it's better than including an Aichi D3A to go with the A6M and Hawaii Adventure Pack...

Actually, I just figured it out. Next up- a No-Cockpit B-25 that you can use to take off from the deck of the USS Hornet, to round out the Michael Bay Pearl Harbor Movie Edition Super Adventure Master Pack! Only 160,000 MS Points, or $59.99, whichever costs more.

lol - Flight is absolutely feature packed then..

Maybe they will make P-40 Cockpit DLC, just for 5.99

COMING SOON - P-40 aneroid barometer Special Edition 'Altimeter Gauge'. Key Features:

- Two indicator hands!

- White on black AUTHENTIC colors!

- Numbers!

- Current sea-level pressure adjustment knob SPECIAL EDITION ONLY

Now Only 1411.141 Xbox Points or $3 USD

Right, it's not a bug or sheer brazenness, it's a FEATURE ! Just believe us !



I still think this is the best indirect "advertisement" for Microsoft(tm)'s new hot simulator:

X-Plane concept changed to react to Mickeysoft's glorious new Flight "Simulator" !

Maybe realistic physics in MS Flight is also a planned DLC!


New DLC:

-Adds realistic physics!

-Lift force feature not included.

i wouldn't touch MS SH FL ite with a bargepole.

I think FSX was poor but MS Flight..... no, no, no.

Do I get an achievement for buying the plane?

another turd gets released ...

by the way, the model has no guns, so as not to offend any sensibilities ...

I feel a little ill, to think I put off purchasing FSX to see what Flight had to offer.

Wankers

Not only are they cornering the addon market, they then release half baked crap.

I really gotta buy FSX one of these days. Now that it's destined to become the ultimate collection of addons...

Or maybe X-Plane?

You know, when at first I heard that the Mustang DLC was to be released without cockpit I thought that it was probably a time/resources issue and that the cockpit would surely be offered later for free. I mean, a payware aircraft for a flighstim without cockpit? Nobody could possibly be THAT brazen. Right? Then came the Zero. And now the P-40. I still think it must be some kind of joke I just fail to comprehend.

I'm just waiting for some MS corporate monkey representative to tell us that the failure of Flight clearly shows that serious flight simulations don't have an audience anymore and that the team will now work on an Angry Birds F2P online game.

there was a interview that said MS was not allowed to build cockpits for any military aircraft included in flight.

until they get trackIR support working, AI traffic of some sort, and some other stuff, i wont be booting it up anymore.


also notice all the aircraft have been single prop powered.

That's because the No dual-prop/dual-engine aircraft feature is also included.

Skate, where did you read that interview? And that seems really strange to me, considering that the P-51 Mustang was included in CFS1 and 3, and A2A has wonderful P-51's and P-40's cockpits. Copyright infringement, or budget restrictions?

CFS was ages ago, there aren't any more "restrictions" from the manufacturers for Military Vehicles. they didnt say why...

I think the real question is what get's release in months 6 - 18 (or maybe 6-12). These cockpitless warbirds were locked in as the post launch releases before beta testing even started.

It will be interesting to see what direction they go once they've had months of user/market feedback and have had a chance to alter (or not alter) the longer term plan. And of course seeing what/if deluxe aircraft the Alaska DLC brings with it will be interesting as well.

If they release cockpit clad planes now, they won't be able to announce a "new" DLC realistic later with cockpits.

I really think that MS Flight simulator 2004 also called 9/IX "A centennial of flight" is still the best civilian flight sim of the Microsoft series. I also have MS FSX but some of the physics seem to have been dumbed down in FS X, and i do not want to train avionics only.
With the lights enhancement pack FS 9/2004 looks nothing short of X, there are tons of planes to buy and free in excellent quality (and a lot more as well), together with nice sceneries worldwide, and as said before in the latter/newer FS X the flight model seems already on the way to the new "Flight".
When it comes to sheer realistic flying with gyroscopic forces, ground loops and bumpy rides in smaller planes, nothing beats "Rise of Flight", but have not tried Cliffs of Dover yet though.

Anyway to sell a virtual plane without cockpit .. what were they thinking ?

Greetings,
Catfish

Funny thing is when you go to the Facebook page, 2 out of 3 comments are about no cockpits or Track Ir and the other is that they like it so if only 1 in 3 like it, then it is good enough I guess.

i still rock FS2002, though i havent actually installed it on my new system.

Just on a lark I re-installed FSX and went to simviation for some freeware planes and all are without textures, just a dull gray model, haven't checked out the scenery I installed yet.

My guess is that there FS9 portovers and you've got DX10 preview checked in the FSX options.
Uncheck DX10 preview and the textures should appear.

this probably is the most dumbed down game ever released

Seems it is a fad that is quickly catching on...

World of Warplanes developer:
"players will be able to switch to a sniper mode that will in some way resemble the cockpit view, but it will be used to increase the accuracy of fire, not just to show how operating of the plane looks like from inside of the cabin."

"NOT JUST TO SHOW how operating the plane looks like"...

- Because they have something much BETTER than that!

- Simple "cockpit view", HA! - Why bother with such an arcane viewing option when you can have SNIPER MODE!

Will it have "bullet time" too... LOL..

Special move button combos for aerobatics

Hi all,

MS Flight is really an innovating concept, producing planes with no cockpits. Maybe they are hoping to train future military pilots who fly UAVs. Or are they preparing for the day when passenger jets will be pilotless. When that day happens I think I will be like John Madden and take the bus.

Wired,

A lone voice but .... I fired up MS Flight for a couple of hours yesterday and actually quite enjoyed it.

Set myself a couple of challenges to fly the steerman to the observatories at 14k ft and then land on a very small beach in a pretty cove. Being able to leave the plane and explore did add an extra reward to completing these. ( having no time compression increased satisfaction as well - I usually can not resist temptation to get there quicker.)

But that was it for my time in Flight. I can't think of anything else to do in the limited and sterile environment. No TrackIR was the biggest immersion killer and I would not consider buying DLC without it.

Wouldn't consider buying anything without a cockpit

That seems to be the overall impression for most (not all) eonel: Fire it up..looks pretty good, flies great, fluid, nice graphics. Then, as you begin peeling the layers of the onion you realize there are only a few layers before you get to a pool ball. I honestly can't see how the environment gets any better flying a P-51, Zero, or P-40 if the things to do remain as ridiculous (ie: boring) as flying around finding aerocaches.

No game in the game.

Good God...now one of the biggest "other" forums has implemented draconian moderation measures, ready to hand out bans at the drop of a hat. The other forum, with flightsim in its name, has a pretty notorious moderator crushing any dissent.

This game has pi**ed off more folks in the community more than I've ever seen; that includes forums, facebook, their own webpage and blog.

I don't think the moderation there (I assume AVSIM) is as draconian as the wording may seem, IMHO it is targeted moderation on the overly attacking posts and especially people who don't even have an interest in Flight but troll repeatedly.

I have posted plenty on that Flight forum about my unhappiness with the Flight team's strategy and missing features, the lack of TrackIR or AI or disappointment of cockpitless aircraft releases, but I have never been moderated or threatened because my posts were on the subject being discussed and not personal attacks and I was not trolling.

I have seen plenty of posts there from both sides (pro and anti Flight) that go overboard, and bring no value other than making the poster feel better about themselves, and getting their troll point in.

So your mileage may vary on whether that moderation is indeed draconian or not... for me if it makes people discuss Flight in a more subjective tone and gets rid of the trolls that don't really use Flight but seek out Flight forums and discussions just to get their repeated digs in, then good riddance, hopefully it will also tone down the Flight fans who attack people asking for TrackIR as some "hardcore simmers" extremist niche (though Josh Howard probably loves those people :D)

FSX and Flight is not a religion (though sometimes they resemble comedies), grown adults should be able to discuss it intelligently without resorting to insults.

Good post Kludger. I was being a little overly dramatic in mine.

No worries Greiss, Microsoft sure managed to drop a flawed grenade into a combustible loyal and diehard community.

I can see that it's been hard for forums like SimHQ and AVSIM to allow a place for discussion of the heated topic without letting things deteriorate past civil discussion from the split community.

Thankfully I think so far, moderators have managed to keep things from spinning out of control and I just hope it just continues to stay civil and moderators don't go overboard until either Flight dies from a lack of player interest and meaningful content (seems to be happening) or the MS Flight Dev team realizes their poor strategy is doomed and makes a change toward making it more sim or at least a fun "flying career game" (my hope however unlikely based on Josh Howard's interviews).

Wow. I actually like MS Flight and was getting tired of the repetative trolling, but, after reading through AVSIM's "Zero Tolerance" sticky in the Flight, it seems like they've taken it to the extrememe:

"You are about to post a new topic to the FLIGHT forum. FLIGHT has been released and this forum is now a support forum for its users. Whether MS was right, wrong or indifferent to the FS community is now water under the bridge. If your post is an attempt to re-open discussion of MS's rights or wrongs, it will be removed. If egregious enough, so will you. Your post can only be a request for support, a hint or help for others, or a resource for other FLIGHT enthusiasts to use."

Everyone knows that silly, civil, and pointless discussions about our opinions of video games is what makes forums fun. I have a feeling the AVSIM Flight forum just became incredibly boring. I doubt I'll check it as often as I do now...

Yeah I think it all boils down to how the AVSIM moderators enforce... if indeed it becomes draconian I too will stop reading the Flight forum as well, I mainly check it now and again to hear any updates on TrackIR or the Alaska DLC (hoping it adds sim enhancements).

My guess from seeing AVSIM moderation before and the statements in the policy is that it may become draconian for trolls but even sided dialogue continues as normal, especially taking into account the amount of discussion at AVSIM about the draconian moderation and banning that happened at Orbx forums over the holidays.

Well the ban-hammer was just drawn out of its holster, big time. Yikes it's gotten out of control fast. Their house, their rules I guess...

Guys - can we please not discuss the forum/moderation policies of another site? It puts us in a difficult spot because they run their ship however they like. Thanks...
--------

To the broader topic though - I think we can all usually tell someone with an agenda or a view that is so completely one-sided that it defies reality. I like to think my Flight review here at SimHQ showcased a lot of the positives of Flight (and there are a lot) but is also weighted appropriately (meaning the proportion of the review that is positive/negative) to reflect the totality of the product.

It is very frustrating for me because I'm not an elitist simmer. I love playing game type sims too..(the aforementioned SAR series and the game-like content in FSX, etc..) I could sit down in an hour and have a half a dozen sketched out fun, diverse, and challenging scenarios for the Flight "game" that would make it more fun (as a game). Why they didn't have more entertaining content on Day 1 is really, really baffling to me.

I'd post my ideas, but I'm waiting for the Flight Team to call me (call me!) to incorporate my ideas..

BeachAV8R

Chris,
Sorry for bringing up the "other" forum issue. I'll refrain from posting about it.

-Blake

P.S. Your review was very, very fair and one of the best I've seen of any game.

Agreed Beach, my apologies as well for not thinking about the difficult spot it makes by discussing the other site moderation here, I will stop.

I also thought your review was on the money and fair, and the ridiculous part of this whole Flight fiasco is that their flawed strategy and ambiguous marketing and interviews has split the Flightsim community and caused people to pick sides and assume everyone has an agenda, the ridiculous monthly release of these cockpitless airplanes just keep picking the scab and making it all fresh over and over.

Thanks guys.. I appreciate the self-moderation..

One thing I do hold out for..is that it really wouldn't take very much to get Flight back ON the right track. Now..Alaska..I don't know. I mean, I'm sure it will be pretty and rugged and all of that..but if the missions and aircraft don't amp up a bit it will be another fiasco. And the problem is, a lot of people have probably already tuned out and won't even drive by for another look. That is my biggest gripe - they had a chance to showcase sims as fun, challenging, and exciting and they missed (over, and over, and over again).

If they could get some skis on the Maule, get the radios working, and put some challenging landing strip missions in there (glacier, gravel bar, tight mountain-top)..they could start going somewhere with the game side of the game. If I have to fly from Nome to Anchorage to deliver monkeys or pick up a $100 hamburger..I'd be pissed.

I'm a simmer. I love sims..love flying..love games. Yet I'm going to wait for the reviews of Alaska to come in before I waste any additional money. That is pretty telling..when the customers that actually would normally WANT the content are sitting on the sidelines because of the track record..

BeachAV8R

The biggest problem with the Alaska DLC is the same problem with Hawaii. You can't fly "there" from somewhere else. You're stuck in that one place. There is no world in-between or next door.

what I don't get is that if a game like wings of steal (x-box) can have a cockipit view in all of there aircraft whay can Microsoft come on you are onley one of the BIGGEST companys in the world sort it out

I don't care if a plane has a cockpit, or not, as long as I can shoot down my enemy with my rockets before my enemy shoots me down with his rockets!

If you would at least have something in the aircraft besides an empty seat..., the world in Flight is static, lifeless, a sandbox with no sand, but you can purchase the sand for a small fee (pail and shovel not included).