El Hadji Jun 6, 2013 @ 3:12pm
So... Is this worth trying?
Played the demo. Hated it. Unrealistic physics at the best. So question is, does any of the DLC offer anything else in terms of sim value? Or is this simply arcade rubbish? Noted that the C-47 comes WITHOUT COCKPIT?!? Whats that all about?!?

My background in flight sims are:

FS2004 (with tons of payware add-ons)
FSX (don't like it much and can't be bothered to buy all good add-ons required)
DCS A-10, P-51, KA-50, UH-1

Also: Does MS Flight support TrackIR5?

Thanx for any input!
Showing 1-15 of 16 comments
< >
theinfmustroll Jun 6, 2013 @ 9:25pm 
Nope. Always online. Nickel and dime for everything. Poor optimization. Few aircraft, no mods. Stick with 04 or FSX. The in game missions are presented well enough, but with such limited options you can forget about any real sim work.
miketulumello Jun 6, 2013 @ 10:55pm 
Agreed, Microsoft hyped up the game, sold a very very watered down version of a flight sim with the false promise of expansions. They released one expansion, and a few planes (overcharging for each one of course ) and then abandoned the project a few months later. Their level of customer service, and disrespect for the fans that spent money on their game was a disgrace. The people who took over the project after it was abandoned did a much better job of communicating to their audience, but they pretty much hopped on a sinking ship. The concept was really a good one, but they made the game that they wanted, not the game people would want to play.
junedragon2000 Jun 7, 2013 @ 12:56pm 
i need help its asking for a acsees key and i dont have one
GeorgeH Jun 7, 2013 @ 7:19pm 
I also agree. As a long time MS simmer I've found this to be a disappointment from day 1. As noted above, stick with 04 or FSX. If you have a lower end system I'd recommend FS2004.
El Hadji Jun 9, 2013 @ 2:02pm 
Eventhough I have a decent rig (i5 3570K and GTX680) I still prefer FS2004 over FSX. Theres just something that doesn't feel ok with FSX.
El Hadji Jun 12, 2013 @ 2:10pm 
MS Flight is a game, not a simulator. Lets leave it at that. And even pilots might enjoy a game now and then.
Nats Jun 13, 2013 @ 3:28am 
AFAIAC MS FSX is a superb piece of software and I have enjoyed it immensely - more than any other flight sim actually. The scenarios are brilliant I especially loved the Hawaiian one, Space Shuttle landing one, the Gliding one, the Canada lakes one, and the Apples one. And its a beautiful sim as well, and I havent come across any speed issues at all.

I have owned quite a few MS Flight Sims before and I havent enjoyed that many of them - the best one was FS2004 Century of Flight just for the authentic old scenarios you can play which I do miss in FSX. But practically everything else is better in FSX - its the first flight sim that I actually felt looked ultra realistic. Just donwload some of the Vertical Studios scenarios to see what an imppresive game it can be (the Geneva default scenery is fantastic):

http://www.vertical-studios.net/?utm_source=Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=bde98670e8-CCW4_launch&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_06f44d0c3d-bde98670e8-13877393

As far as MS Flight is concerned I cant say anything about it because I have never tried it, but I know it looks far too limited for me to be able to enjoy it so I havent even bothered downloading the free version.
El Hadji Jun 14, 2013 @ 1:23am 
I agree FS2004 Century of Flight is THE best sim ever! Especially with some add-ons! I have spent countless hours flying PMDG 737-400 and Majestic Dash-8 between major European airports - especially from ESGG, which is the one I visit most IRL, to LGSA etc in Greece.

When it comes to military flying nothing beats Digital Combat Simulator where the level of attention paid to detail is AMAZING! Im currently looking forward to the DCS MiG-21 Bis by a 3rd party developer in Hungary,

I installed FSX the other day and bought a few payware aircraft (including PMDG of course).

MS Flight is a game and can't be compared with any of the above. It looks good enough but in terms of actual flight simulation not so much. The fact that they actually sell a C-47 to fly in 3rd person view says it all I think!
Morlizer Jul 3, 2013 @ 5:04am 
It's an enjoyable game, i play it with nvidia 3D vision, TrackIR 5 and thrustmaster 16 000. 3D vision is a game changer, it works in FSX to but the lights are not optimized. In Flight it works flawlessly.
Draco_Platina Jul 15, 2013 @ 11:47pm 
I enjoy it, though it is true that it is certainly not a simulator. X-Plane, actually, is probably top-tier choice if you're looking for a solid, up-to-date simulator. It's really a bummer that Microsoft dropped support of this so quickly, and the least they could do after dropping support is open it to the modding community. Instead, they released a half-finished plane.
Tuold Jul 19, 2013 @ 8:04pm 
I find that most people spend $60 on a game , play it for a maximum of 20 to 30 hours and call that a good deal. Well, I have FS2004, CoD, IL 2 1946, as well as several other sims. Yet MS Flight has had my attention for over 110 hours!

They all have their strengths and weaknesses. MS Flight was essentially stillborn and yet has some good core gameplay value. I like the combination/flight-sim/adventure-roleplaying thing that this game has.

It runs very well on my aging Core2 quad system, so if you are having trouble on an i5 system I woldn't know what's wrong.

By the way, there is now C 47 in MS Flight. It's a C 46, and you don't need that or any other of the add-on aircraft to have a good time with this other than the Maule M 7 which seems to modeled very well.

So for 15 bucks or so you can get very many hours of entertainment, if you like THAT kind of entertainment. Some do and some don't. I enjoy it quite a bit.
CatManMajesticBunnyMelonInSpace Jul 25, 2013 @ 12:46pm 
Flight Simulator is better but MS Flight is a pretty decent alternative
Storeyedtrain Aug 19, 2013 @ 5:08am 
Flight is certainly a better Simulator than FSX.
But you have to compare apples with apples.

If in MS Flight you take the Maule for a flight in Alaska, and compare it with taking the Maule for a flight in Alaska in FSX (with updated scenery)

You will experience MS Flight will have.
Better physics, better handling, better aerodynamic model.
Better visuals, better lighting, better high res texturing, better mesh for landscape.
Better performance, for trees, buildings, and no sudden FPS drops, and finally uses a bit of GPU
Better menu`s, more intuitive layouts, better user experience in general.

But virtually no Moddability, which is very sad.
And no big airliners for the FSX buttonjunkies that like to fly purely on autopilot/ILS and other automated systems.

The main reason FSX still exists is that eventho MS Flight is technically better at everything, in FSX you can (eventho less realistically/beautifully) fly over your own country, and fly with the plane you like most (eventho not as realistically).
And FSX has big planes which facilitate to the "Community/Userbase" which ended up being the userbase, because FSX runs at such an appalling low FPS/lack of smoothness, that the only thing you can somewhat do in FSX is fly the plane on instruments, instead of by hand like a real Pilot. :P

If MS Flight is on sale (around 75% discount on everything) getting all scenery and deluxe aircraft (with cockpit) is imho a must have addon to your Flightsim collection.
Normal price is imho to high, but then people pay more than 50$ for PMDG planes for FSX.
TheCodifier Aug 21, 2013 @ 7:51am 
MS Flight would have been a very good base for a new Flight Simulator with updated graphics and physics.

It falls short on the amount and diversity of planes and scenery however.
El Hadji Aug 21, 2013 @ 11:31am 
Originally posted by Storeyedtrain:
Flight is certainly a better Simulator than FSX.
But you have to compare apples with apples.

If in MS Flight you take the Maule for a flight in Alaska, and compare it with taking the Maule for a flight in Alaska in FSX (with updated scenery)

You will experience MS Flight will have.
Better physics, better handling, better aerodynamic model.
Better visuals, better lighting, better high res texturing, better mesh for landscape.
Better performance, for trees, buildings, and no sudden FPS drops, and finally uses a bit of GPU
Better menu`s, more intuitive layouts, better user experience in general.

But virtually no Moddability, which is very sad.
And no big airliners for the FSX buttonjunkies that like to fly purely on autopilot/ILS and other automated systems.

The main reason FSX still exists is that eventho MS Flight is technically better at everything, in FSX you can (eventho less realistically/beautifully) fly over your own country, and fly with the plane you like most (eventho not as realistically).
And FSX has big planes which facilitate to the "Community/Userbase" which ended up being the userbase, because FSX runs at such an appalling low FPS/lack of smoothness, that the only thing you can somewhat do in FSX is fly the plane on instruments, instead of by hand like a real Pilot. :P

If MS Flight is on sale (around 75% discount on everything) getting all scenery and deluxe aircraft (with cockpit) is imho a must have addon to your Flightsim collection.
Normal price is imho to high, but then people pay more than 50$ for PMDG planes for FSX.

You can't possibly mean that this is better than FSX or even FS9?1? Sure, it looks good but thats it. I have hundreds of hours in FS9 and FSX and I like realistic flying. I also fly the DCS-series for military aviation. MS Flight can't be compared to any of those in terms of realism i.e. SIMULATION and immersion.

The main reason that sims like FSX still exists is the level of realism: you can fly anywhere in the world, in any weather you want, use basically any aircraft you want, use photorealistic scenery (that makes MS Flight look like Donkey Kong) and quality aircraft from devs like PMDG, Majestic or Carenado.

MS Flight is good for one thing: semi-realistic low level flying in a limited world. With a very limited amount of aircraft.
Last edited by El Hadji; Aug 21, 2013 @ 11:33am
Showing 1-15 of 16 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50