@croberts68 @jpritchett_cig @JCrewe_CIG @discolando I and my entire org are concerned. At one point we were the 14th most active org. But many of our members have fallen into inactivity because.... the flight model is poor... and has been for some time. The latest ATV and RTV (which was hyped as bringing answers to flight balance questions in the "flight model concerns" thread after ATV) gave me hope that some answers would be forthcoming. However, as I watched the RTV in particular, I increasingly became impressed with the apparent lack of understanding of what the biggest flight model issue even is. Sure, John and Andy are focused on balance and a lot of that has to do with guns (and they answered those questions quite well, thanks!). But when it came to the flight model balance questions only the broken state of ESP and IFCS were mentioned. While acknowledging they were not the experts on this, they had checked with engineering (again thank you!) enough to be able to say that ESP and IFCS were being "fixed" for the next patch of 3.0. That's great for ESP and IFCS, kind of. But the problem here is not with the answers about ESP and IFCS. The problem is that ESP and IFCS being restored to intended working order was given as an answer to fixing the flight model. But that will not do anything to address many of the aspects of the flight model that the community has criticized in thread after thread for quite some time now: excessive maneuvering thrust power and twitch behaviors. There are plenty of those threads suggesting fixes for the current state of the flight model from a gameplay standpoint. But they don't seem to be making any significant difference. (There are some who have posted that these threads may not reflect a good direction for the game, and therefore should not make a significant difference. While it is my opinion that they offer viable, perhaps fun options, what I am calling for here is not that my preferred changes be adopted, but rather that a wider variety of the suggested options from across the community be tested by a small focus group or dev team in order to determine a fun way forward for flight, and then for that way forward be communicated with proper comments addressing the concerns raised by the broad community.) And it has me asking a vital question. Is there a person in charge of designing and maintaining the flight model so that it becomes fun to play in (and out of) combat? Judging by RTV, there doesn't seem to be anyone responsible for developing and designing the gameplay feel of the flight model. (Note, I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure I'm talking design here, not engineering.) John Pritchett does great with programming the physics (if my memory is right). John Crewe and Andy Nicholson work on balance (according to RTV). Who works on making the flight model feel right and fun to play??? (As an example, in the initial 3.0 PTU rollouts, the flight model functionality to traverse large distances seemed to be an afterthought. Somebody specific should have been in charge of designing that long before 3.0's PTU rollout.) Constructive Suggestion: I think CIG needs to form a focus group of top pilots of various skill levels and controls to serve in giving suggestions to take the in game physics (which are great!) from the current not-fun-to-fly-combat, and change it into something that feels good to fly, and is an absolute blast, even without guns. THEN John and Andy can do their thing with the guns and it will matter again. Because more combat pilots (like the other three quarters of my org) will start to play again. If there is already a person in charge of designing and maintaining a fun flight model, maybe they could show up on an RTV/ATV/CAD something somewhere so we can finally hear that someone at CIG knows this is a MAJOR problem.... Thank you guys for making the most awesome space game ever! I have looked forward to something like this since Wing Commander days, and sincerely hope this suggestion helps it continue to develop into something we will all enjoy for ages to come! Sincerely, Solomon Cristatus EDIT: changed "top pilots" to pilots of various skill levels and controls. EDIT: based on feedback, modified title to be less "click bait" and added a qualifier that I am not demanding my flight model, but rather calling for clear design direction and communication which addresses the broad community concerns regarding flight, both for and against the current state.