Microsoft granted me acess to their upcoming free to play flight simulator ‘Flight’. I’m a fan of their previous game FSX, especially flying in the gliders and was suprised to learn of Flight because the studio which made FSX was shut down a couple of years ago. Flight isn’t quite as ambitious as FSX in that instead of modelling the entire planet, it’s just modelling Hawaii – this seems to be a way of focusing the simulator into something more resembling a game. Similarly to TDU, you’re give a map with missions and tasks dotted around it, initially these missions are just training the basics but they quickly start to enter Pilotwings teritory by asking you to fly through hoops in low altitude challange courses, or by collecting coins dotted in tricky spots in a small area within a set time limit. With the game still being in BETA, there’s not that many missions available but you do unlock more as you progress. I think for this game to maintain an audience and keep the interest for new sim fans then they will have to really focus on creating a plethora of varied missions across all skill levels.
I’ve spent about 3 hours with the game so far and have flown two very slow and easy craft; the sleek, modern Icon A5 and the more old school Stearman. Both planes are very fun to fly and the challenges I’ve played so far are very well suited to their manoeuvring capabilities. I will be very interested to know what other planes they will be introducing to the game as well as how much they will cost or if they will be unlock-able by just playing. Both the Icon and the Stearman are very meticulously modelled, both planes feature manual start-ups, fully 3D cockpits with interactive buttons and they both handle realistically when all the default assistance features are disabled. The Icon for example, is very light and manoeuvrable but it gets pushed around by the wind quite easy, whereas the Stearman is less manoeuvrable but feels more stable and powerful.
Graphically the game is quite disappointing, I hoped that in just focusing on Hawaii that Microsoft would be able to really push the ground scenery detail and make the scale feel more real but so far the scenery looks the same as FSX, when flying near the ground – and the game often encourages this – it can sometimes feel like you’re flying over a miniature set of a landscape. Compare this with Just Cause where the landmass is comparable and when flying, the mountain and ground details look huge – Flight comes off looking a bit old. There are some elements where the ground looks good, mostly in ferry ports and very specific locations where missions are situated, again though I just with the terrain wasn’t blurry and cliff faces looked like more than the edge of a garden pot-hole.
I’m yet to play the new X-Plane and I’m eager to, I’ve some suspicions that it will be the better simulator but it won’t be the better game. Microsoft are doing something very clever here with Flight, they’re making a game which is easy for newcomers to enjoy and is perfectly adaptable to a controller. Under the hood is still all the meticulous simulation aspects you come to expect from Microsoft, including Track-Ir support, multi-monitors and any configuration of peripherals you want to throw at it. If Microsoft can dream up a massive batch of varied missions to carry the player through a solid 10 hours or so then I think this game will be a success and might even do what no modern simulator has tried to do by getting new people interested. I think the game has a great interface, HUD and a smooth, cheesy but uplifting style that could work well if their marketing stays consistent with the mood of the game. I guess that’s what I’m trying to get at really – this is a simulator with a mood, it has a bit of heart and because it’s pure and doesn’t try to do anything other than just letting you enjoy flying it comes of more successful than Take on Helicopters.
