Right you are, had you confused with someone else. Still spot a bit of a contradiction though: immersion and atmosphere are transfered through sound and visuals. I'd argue that the step up in graphics from FS9 to FSX would improve it, same would apply in a FSX > MS Flight comparison, even if it costs a little performance.
To clarify, I don't mean to attack, it's just that when I spot something that strikes me as a contradiction it triggers a bit of skepticism.
And yes, what draws me most to DCS, and actually any sim that goes into great (extreme) detail modeling a platform and all of it's (non-classified) components, is the actual platform. Flying and learning how the thing works is what it is about for me, tossing ordnance around is just a perk.
That said, they came a long way with the Warthog. AWACS feeding information, chatter from friendly flights (provided you tuned their frequency) regarding weapon launches and kills etc, signing in with a FAC for tasking, I feel much more involved in what is going on than with the Kamov.
Now if it just had a dynamic campaign...
Coming back to MS Flight... I guess actually that advancement in technology might sway me to consider it more fairly down the road. If the underlying simulation from the older titles is still in place, I guess one could ignore the other stuff they tacked on and just make it about flying again. Having something pretty to look at out the window wouldn't hurt.