Let's speculate

[DarkstarF16 72]

Based on what I didn't know when I originally posted, it sounds like a foregone conclusion that the flight engine will be reincarnated.

 

Stonelance, over the next week or two I shall be giving flight tools a well deserved look. You've done lots and I thank you. It's got to be worth flying over new areas in flight because its still the best at what it does.

[Wobbie 938]

Dunno if I want a game limited to DLC's only. IF that's the route they going to take. The freeware devs are the backbone & nursery of devs for our hobby at the moment.

Dunno if I want a game limited to DLC's only. IF that's the route they going to take. The freeware devs are the backbone & nursery of devs for our hobby at the moment.

[stonelance 136]

We shouldn't mix up DLC and paid content.  DLC just stands for "Downloadable Content", and it can be free or paid.  It is just a different word for the same thing that 3rd party devs for Flight Simulator have been doing for a long time.  Flight had a free DLC, so it is definitely supported in the engine and marketplace(s).  It is up to the developer to decide whether they want to take advantage of it or not.

[Wobbie 938]

You are correct, of course. I was using my DLC comment with reference to FSX:SE, where, I could be mistaken, there are 5 pay only DLC's I have not yet seen any freeware DLC's. We all know what happened with Flight! & Flight! DLC's, & that is my concern with the future flight release from Dovetail

[stonelance 136]

Yeah, I would guess since there is another channel to get DLC for FSX:SE (by manually installing them), Dovetail isn't concerned with putting free ones on Steam.

 

Hopefully they see the usefulness of having free DLC (and tools!) for any future flight product they create.

[mibmab 6]

I think overall the FSX conversion looks much better than the same areas would look in FSX. Also, I think even if Dovetail's future product included the whole world it will not be Flight quality. It takes too much work to do that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do something similar to what I did with the FSX conversion where the quality is somewhere between FSX and Flight with a couple more high detail areas. We were in the middle of doing Grand Canyon when Flight was shutdown, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is one of them.

 

I agree, the conversion looks in many areas much better. It seems though that urban areas tend to look quite similar with FSX often showing more auto-gen buildings than Flight, but mountain areas, particularly combined with the weather and light effects, look much better in Flight. Not too mention the much smoother performance in Flight. I did a few comparative screenshots, including a few shots from Grand Canyon to illustrate this:

 

View towards Locarno

 

 

Lugano Airport

 

 

London City Airport approach

 

 

Tower Bridge

 

 

Houses of Parliament

 

 

Battersea Power Station

 

 

Grand Canyon

 

 

 

[LAdamson 240]

At this point, any new sim with combined features of FSX & Flight, will be competing with X-Plane 10 for mountain visuals. See the recent Swiss Alps thread in the screenshot forum.  Since I very much enjoy flying mountain areas, XP-10 wins by quite a margin, until I get down into some of the valleys & towns, then I prefer my Orbx scenery for FSX.  Both FSX and X-Plane run very smooth in mountain areas, on my setup. Orbx mountain airport scenery will even run in the 50's & 60's, fps wise. Mountains & clouds alone, can get over a 100 with FSX & X-Plane.  I'm no longer sure, that Flight would be any advantage, smoothness wise.

[jcomm 5,923]

 I'm no longer sure, that Flight would be any advantage, smoothness wise.

 

I think it can, because of the way it is coded, but for sure it is flight dynamics wise... Ahead of either FSX or XP....

 

Yes I found ported to MS FLIGHT some of the limitations, for instance, of MSFS's prop and reciprocating models, but the feel of flight, the aspects that we could never see in ANY add-on ( even the more sophisticated available for either fs9 or fsx, or x-plane 10 ) and are so beautifully reproduced in MS FLIGHT make it really different and for sure worth the use / install, while we keep waiting for Dovetail's offer :-)

[Wobbie 938]

So, for a Flight! newbie, how do I get started, where can I download Flight!? Can it be used off-line & how to I get FSX scenery into it?

 

All this chat has become interesting & I would like to give it a try.

[jcomm 5,923]

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/458709-flight-toolkit-110-fsx-scenery-conversion/

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/462187-scenery-import-question/

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/462128-question-for-the-experts-on-reinstalling-flight-in-2015/

[KavindaJD 31]

Nice comparisons mibamb! The difference really is obvious with those Screens. Nice job!

[DarkstarF16 72]

[mibmab 6]

Yes mibmab, good stuff

 

Hopefully this coming week I'll get a chance to do some conversions. I'm looking forward to experiencing flying over familiar territory. The flight model is so good as was mentioned above ^ and flying in Hawaii and Alaska was always a pleasure. But flying in an area your familiar with coupled with Flights superb flight characteristics is what is driving me.

 

Bri

 

Cheers, sorry I got the seasons a bit wrong in some of the shots.  B)  And I agree, the flight model of Flight really is a great and immersive experience without too much hassle setting it up correctly. With FSX, as good as it is as an alround full-blown simulator, operating the airplanes always feels quite detached. Or maybe that's just my inability to set it up correctly. Though I do like its glider simulation - as it reminds me of the time I was flying RC gliders. As for X-Plane, I only know the demo, and it took me ages to get it running. And looking at its system requirements, I would have to invest quite a bit in more memory and a highend graphics card, while Flight runs perfectly fine on my system.

 

If you manage to do the world conversion for Flight it's worth trying out these spots:

 

- Getting the Maule off the ground at Charana airport at 13300 ft on the Altiplano of Bolivia is quite a challenge in windy weather.

- A bit lower at 10000 ft is Lukla airport in the Himalayas, now named Tenzing-Hillary airport, nearby Mount Everest. Starting and landing here is a great challenge in windy weather due to its awkward location and short runway.

- Flying around Rio de Janeiro, and generally along the Brazilian coast, is great fun.

- Starting at Samedan Airport then flying along the Bernina Pass towards Italy has some amazing alpine scenery.

- Staying in the alps, starting at Interlaken airport, you can head to the impressive Eiger Nordwand.

- The Niagara Falls even have an animated tourist boat :-)

- Tokyo is great - particularly some of the detailed visualisation of nearby airports like Narita.

- Clandestine missions, one of the more challenging tasks in Flight, also pop up occasionally in the World section. They tend to be most fun in mountain areas.

[DarkstarF16 72]

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

I know when I'm in the RV6 on my triple screens and I roll down the runway you get a wow moment. The fact Flight performs so much better than the other sim may have something to do with the perception that the flight model is better who knows. I im having a new PC build so hopefully the 'other' sims (I'm using P3D) performance will improve. I have a sneaky suspicion though, that Flight will still be good at what it does and the other one will do what it does better.

 

I do think that performance has to do with perception.  At least to some degree. Over the years, there have been many claims to X-Planes flight model, but I attributed much of that to smooth performance.  With my new system, I'm actually running both FSX & X-Plane with extremely smooth frame rates, and a great lacking of those FSX micro-stutters.  Just a few weeks ago, I made a comment about having to notice what sim I'm in, because the flight dynamics seemed much more of the same.  I do run some better 3rd party airplanes with both sims.

 

I have Flight on my old computer, but never had much chance to run it. Never had the Microsoft RV6 either.  Wonder if I can transfer the sim over;  but the RV6 was a plane that had to be purchased, and no longer available...............is that correct?  It would be a good comparison, because I built and flew a nice RV6A, with a constant speed prop.  For FSX, the RealAir Lancair Legacy, and older Marchetti SF260  are my comparable sim planes, as well as the Baytower RV7 I used with my old setup.