Old 03-07-2012, 12:02 AM   #21
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,222
Default

I must congratulate the people at Icon.
I think they are the ones that come best out of this.

Millions of people trying FLIGHT for free and forced to make at least two flights with the A5.

And you know what? It's a lot of fun. And the plane has a lot of appeal.
It's a mixture between a jet-ski, a sport car, and a plane.
Every rich guy will want one.

I, to begin with, do. (except I'm not rich so I don't count).

And even more after visiting the Icon web site.

What this guys did with the plane is pretty amazing (or what they say they did).

Let's compare it with my beloved Tomahawk.
7 knots less of stall speed (42 vs 49)
12 HP less (100 vs 112)
10 knots faster cruise (100 vs 90)
While burning less fuel.
And all that with a seaplane, which ads more weight and aerodynamic drag, and being retractable, which ads even more weight.
Plus, they put an angle-of-attack indicator, and you know how much I have been advocating for that.
And on top of all that, they made the first plane ever that is fully spin resistant to FAR 23 standards (while they didn't need to do that because the plane will not be certified under the FAA-mandated FAR 23 but under the industry-consensus ASTM standards required for the sport light airplane -SLA- category).
And if it flies anywhere near the handling qualities of its virtual FLIGHT version, it will be a delight to fly, especially for the non-puristic stick-and-rudder pilot.
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 02:18 AM   #22
3WE
Senior Member
 
3WE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
...Plus, they put an angle-of-attack indicator, and you know how much I have been advocating for that...
The Colgan crash was caused by a faiure to monitor speed due to inattention or some other distraction...and you want pilots to monitor one more thing?

__________________
"Shit, 3WE was right" Gabriel, The Hell Better Aeroengineer, 7/22/2014.
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 10:06 PM   #23
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
The Colgan crash was caused by a faiure to monitor speed due to inattention or some other distraction...and you want pilots to monitor one more thing?

No. They removed the VSI to cpmensate.
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 01:34 AM   #24
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,222
Default

Maybe, just maybe, things will not be that bad (if you wait enough and pay enough)

http://soldant.wordpress.com/2012/02...flight-review/

Quote:
... The default flight model with all the “assits” turned on is actually far more unforgiving than the “easy” flight model in Flight Simulator X. Turn off the assists, and the commentary coming from real-world pilots in the beta suggests that the aircraft actually fly closer to reality than the base content ever did in FSX. I’ve seen particularly good comments about the RV6 from pilots who actually own and fly one ...

... Yes, there is a bar up the top that by default shows you the heading, airspeed, throttle setting, wind speed and direction, altitude and fuel quantity. Yes, you can turn it off if you want...

... You can fly entirely on instruments without referring to that bar at the top, it isn’t a problem. VOR, NDB and ILS stations are in the game, you can set the radio to lock onto them, and there are cockpit instruments that fuction the same as in FSX...
Note the navigation avionics:





Note the nav-aids on the map (that I could not find):

Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 01:46 AM   #25
3WE
Senior Member
 
3WE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,202
Default

Show me a sun-faded and cracked cheap composite decorative instrument panel cover like off of a 1970-something 172....

Do I see a little cowling extending out in front of the windshield?

How is the balance between a full instrument panel & controls versus a good look out the window? (I noted FSX has IFR and VFR modes which equates to minimal vs significant windshield combined with a full vs a little bit limited panel )
__________________
"Shit, 3WE was right" Gabriel, The Hell Better Aeroengineer, 7/22/2014.
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 04:47 AM   #26
Leftseat86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,764
Send a message via AIM to Leftseat86 Send a message via MSN to Leftseat86 Send a message via Yahoo to Leftseat86
Default

I'm gonna give this a shot tonight and report back.
Leftseat86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 04:52 PM   #27
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
Do I see a little cowling extending out in front of the windshield?

How is the balance between a full instrument panel & controls versus a good look out the window? (I noted FSX has IFR and VFR modes which equates to minimal vs significant windshield combined with a full vs a little bit limited panel )
One thing that I can report that is a big improvement is the let's call it view management.

With the hat switch you rotate your head like a swivel, very smoothly and controllable. Displacing the mouse with the center button (wheel) pressed you displace your head up and down and left and right. So you can actually stretch to look over the panel (and see the full cowling) or move your had to the side to taxi a taildragger.

And with backspace, the head return to the center (both linearly and angulary), so you never become disoriented.
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 05:53 AM   #28
brianw999
Super Moderator
 
brianw999's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
Posts: 9,612



Default

Well, downloaded it and tried it. Not impressed at all. My machine runs FSX well but for Flight I had to turn everything down. It may well develop over time but I rather think it's going to wind up costing a lot of money for a programme that's nothing more than a game.
If you are a serious flight simmer then this is not the software for you.
__________________
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

brianw999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 07:37 AM   #29
yash777
Member
 
yash777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 278
Send a message via MSN to yash777 Send a message via Yahoo to yash777 Send a message via Skype™ to yash777
Default

I think it's crap.

Will stick to fs2004. Nothing beats it
__________________
yash777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 10:40 PM   #30
3WE
Senior Member
 
3WE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yash777 View Post
I think it's crap.

Will stick to fs2004. Nothing beats it
Hey, at least in X when you dial in stratus at 200 ft AGL you don't see the damn rabbit and runway 2 miles out......
__________________
"Shit, 3WE was right" Gabriel, The Hell Better Aeroengineer, 7/22/2014.
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 10:31 AM   #31
brianw999
Super Moderator
 
brianw999's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
Posts: 9,612



Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yash777 View Post
I think it's crap.

Will stick to fs2004. Nothing beats it
Actually, I have to agree with you there. Although FSX runs reasonably well on my machine, 2004 with all the bells and whistles turned right up and some pretty heavy add on sceneries included runs at a steady 30fps all the time.
...and I'll never quite understand why some people complain that they can't get a sim of any type to run well above 30fps !! The human eye can't distinguish any difference above 30fps anyway !! All you're doing running at rates in excess of 30fps is using processor power unnecessarily.
__________________
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

brianw999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2012, 08:12 PM   #32
LH-B744
Member
 
LH-B744's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 1 hr away from EDDL
Posts: 482
Send a message via ICQ to LH-B744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
Well....having read all that and had a try with it all I can say is that it's a damn good thing....a damn good thing that is that it's free !

I certainly wouldn't part with money for it.

I'll stick with my FSX thanks very much.
Yes, +1.

Could you say which aircraft did you use in MS Flight?

Afaik, there is a choice between two or three different machines.
And you don't have gauges but you'll have to fly from the "outside the cockpit" point of view.
Which is a tricky situation if you think of my favourite aircraft...

The only thing that I've ever flown without gauges is this motorized paraglider, which is the default choice in fsx.
So in my eyes, Flight really is rather a game than a simulator.
__________________
"I don't believe in first impressions." End of the quotation.
LH-B744 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2012, 08:23 PM   #33
yash777
Member
 
yash777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 278
Send a message via MSN to yash777 Send a message via Yahoo to yash777 Send a message via Skype™ to yash777
Default

Has anyone seen trailers of X Plane 10? It absolutely pwns FSX and Flight. You can design your own airfoils too!
__________________
yash777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 09:17 PM   #34
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
Yes, +1.

Could you say which aircraft did you use in MS Flight?

Afaik, there is a choice between two or three different machines.
And you don't have gauges but you'll have to fly from the "outside the cockpit" point of view.
Which is a tricky situation if you think of my favourite aircraft...

The only thing that I've ever flown without gauges is this motorized paraglider, which is the default choice in fsx.
So in my eyes, Flight really is rather a game than a simulator.
If you read my previous posts, you'll know that MS Flight comes free with one island of Hawaii and the Icon A5 as the only plane. By subscribing a "Games for Windows - LIVE" free account you get access to the Boeing Stearman for free too. And that's all that comes for free so far.

For a pay you can get the rest of Hawaii and more airplanes. ONE of them (the P51) lacks a cockpit view. The rest of the planes so far come with a pretty functional instrument panel (as complete as you'd find in those planes). And the cockpit view is much more realistic than in previous versions too, and the "head motion" much more friendly and smooth.

The Stearman and Icon lack any IFR instrument, so you have the VFR panel and all the switches and levers. The Maule and Vans do have a six pack + VOR, ILS, ADF, DME and TXP, what make them IFR worthy. (see photos in my previous posts).

I've been playing a bit more since my last posts and I am pretty impressed with the flight model. It seems much better than FS9 or FSX. I say "seems" because there was no default Icon or Stearman in FSX. But it feels pretty natural and for the first time I feel that the stalls and spins (or at least the entry of the spins) are somehow realistic.

The graphics are also quite improved from previous versions and the motion is very smooth even with a high graphics setting and a 2+ years old PC.

There is no software development kit that would allow third parties to make sceneries and planes, and no word about whether one will be available (rumors say there won't).

There has a lot of "missions" that give you "points" and let you qualify for a higher "level" which unblocks more "missions". Some of the missions include doing things that should be discouraged rather than encouraged (like running out of fuel, buzzing boats, or smuggling suspicious cargo).

But except the first two missions that are introductory to flying, the rest you do them only if you want. You can always choose a plane, a location, a time of the year and day, a weather, and go for a free flight, just like in any previous MSFS version.

So far, yes, it is aimed more to the gamer than the simmers, mostly because of the scope (few planes, very small part of the world, no third party friendliness, not much emphasis on IFR). But the basics are there to make it a very good sim: Flight model, graphics and frame rates, and even the sounds, are clearly better than ever.

Will it ever become a "real" sim? Time will tell. So far, it's fun to "play" with it a bit, especially when you don't have to pay a cent.
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 01:51 AM   #35
Leftseat86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,764
Send a message via AIM to Leftseat86 Send a message via MSN to Leftseat86 Send a message via Yahoo to Leftseat86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
Actually, I have to agree with you there. Although FSX runs reasonably well on my machine, 2004 with all the bells and whistles turned right up and some pretty heavy add on sceneries included runs at a steady 30fps all the time.
...and I'll never quite understand why some people complain that they can't get a sim of any type to run well above 30fps !! The human eye can't distinguish any difference above 30fps anyway !! All you're doing running at rates in excess of 30fps is using processor power unnecessarily.
I always run FSX or Fs2004 locked at 25 or 20fps depending. Above 20fps is perfectly playable in my opinion.
Leftseat86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 09:01 AM   #36
brianw999
Super Moderator
 
brianw999's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
Posts: 9,612



Default

I used the Icon in Flight.

Since this thread started I've resurrected my FS2004/fs9. I've downloaded some free sceneries and some excellent freeware aircraft and reinstalled my copy of FS Traffic from Just Flight.

.............And it's bloody marvellous. To be honest, it comes close to being better than FSX if only for the fact that it maintains a steady locked 25fps 100% of the time.
__________________
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

brianw999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2012, 11:05 AM   #37
ALPHA320
Member
 
ALPHA320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Default

Couldn't agree more, Gabriel, the flight model is the best I have ever seen in any Microsoft Flight Simulator. Flight offers highly realistic flying experience, however I don't like the gaming charakter very much... .
But there is also a simulator called "aerofly FS", it is not free but offers the best flight model I ever saw in any desktop simulation. It is just amazing. However the sim has no working virtual cockpit, just dummy switches.
ALPHA320 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright JetPhotos.Net 2003-2011