233 replies to this topic

[pyruvate]

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 08:27 PM, said:

I noticed on the main Flight page, it mentions Flight was inspired by the Flight Simulator series. Which hints that this isn't going to be considered a part of the simulator series.

Quote

Twenty-eight years after the debut of "Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0," Microsoft Game Studios announces the internal development of "Microsoft Flight." "Microsoft Flight" will bring a new perspective to the long-standing genre, welcoming everyone, including long-time fans to experience the magic of flight. For continual updates over time and to view a teaser of the future of Flight on the Windows PC, visit www.microsoft.com/games/flight

But lets not all just jump to conclusions here, we have a 30 second trailer, 3 paragraphs, and a name.
If they're going the release a Demo, that's the first time when we'll know what it really is.

Actually, you also have something else-some character art in the game's webpage that seems to match the voice you hear in the trailer.

I never saw that, my monitor's not that big and I didn't see the scroll bar at the bottom.   This is interesting... but whatever crap they do, as long as they keep the Simulation part, PERFORMANCE, and we have people like PMDG, LVD etc... develop for it, I'm fine with whatever extra crap they introduce.

_Romario, on Aug 17 2010, 08:41 PM, said:

YES!! Although they better not be stupid and re-code the whole sim [i.e. they should make it compatible with FSX addons], because every developer would have to create a new version of their product that they have done for FSX.

No, it's about time that they break away from that old aging engine, I don't want to see the crap performance we had we FSX again.  I can max out FS9 with using 1 of my 6 cores, but FSX even with SP2 and tweaking heavily doesn't use what my hardware offers properly, and DX10 wasn't finished.  I get good frames in DX10, but it's awfully buggy.

We have Multi-core processors, DX10 and DX11, new instruction sets, and much more efficient technology available.

Edited by pyruvate, 17 August 2010 - 10:17 AM.

[Peter797]

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

Quote

brings a new perspective to the long-standing genre

This can be very good or very bad.

Exactly. FIRST THING that everybody on this topic needs to stop doing, is stop the "sim vs arcade" topic. You saw one freakin trailer! Which is probably a 20 minute job that some guy pulled up for the sake of the site.


When they say new perspective it will mean,

Good: New graphics engine, new UI, better performance, more default aircraft etc.

Bad: Will be easier to fly (arcade). To be honest that's the only bad thing I can think of.

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 08:27 PM, said:

I noticed on the main Flight page, it mentions Flight was inspired by the Flight Simulator series. Which hints that this isn't going to be considered a part of the simulator series.

Quote

Twenty-eight years after the debut of "Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0," Microsoft Game Studios announces the internal development of "Microsoft Flight." "Microsoft Flight" will bring a new perspective to the long-standing genre, welcoming everyone, including long-time fans to experience the magic of flight. For continual updates over time and to view a teaser of the future of Flight on the Windows PC, visit www.microsoft.com/games/flight

But lets not all just jump to conclusions here, we have a 30 second trailer, 3 paragraphs, and a name.
If they're going the release a Demo, that's the first time when we'll know what it really is.

you ALL KNOW how curious you are to see this.


Only thing that will destroy this MS F for 99% of our community, is if it's truly on xBox.


I hope I covered everything.





I bet that it will be released next summer.

[Prancer]

I have to wonder...with the live emphasis and some 3D character art..

If part of the game will involve making an avatar, roaming the airfield with it, and interacting with others. Which may mean it's partially condensed location wise. Maybe even modeled after the Test Drive series.

[Alaska_MD-83]

(Remember, Windows dumped the XP/Vista/me and just became 7)

[SwitchFX]

SamYeager, on Aug 17 2010, 02:34 AM, said:

Excerpt from official press release:
  Ok, so PC based which is good but seems heavily, if not exclusively, oriented to playing on-line which is bad from my point of view.

No?

The LIVE platform is for receiving news, updates, and using the networks as a base for online play, or use another network, like VATSIM.

It's like the built-in upgrader in Windows 7.

Edited by SwitchFX, 17 August 2010 - 10:48 AM.

[niteye]

I still consider 'Flight' to just be the successor and intended replacement of FSX.

Considering the Flight Simulator franchise dead and Flight to be a new franchise is just another way to look at the same situation.

I think they just wanted to start over with a new modernized slate now that the ACES Studios went somewhere else and the name "Flight Simulator" comes from an era where electronic entertainment and virtual reality were the hot thing. "Simulator' is just something really oldfashioned to have in a name.

Edited by niteye, 17 August 2010 - 10:58 AM.

[Prancer]

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

I've been playing FS9 since for over five years, and NEVER get bored .  FS is just a game you can't get bored w/!

All the more reason why I hope Flight takes a new turn. If you have all you need in FS9, then why would you need something else?

I'd honestly love the idea of having a smaller, but much more detailed world to fly in. Getting FSX to look decent requires shelling out a lot of money, plus if you buy payware aircraft as well...you shouldn't have to pay $200+ for each release. If this is in fact a smaller, more detailed world, than the need to do that is gone.

Or perhaps multiple worlds, to reduce lag in an online world...select if you want to fly in a big city, island chain, mountains...if Flight takes a turn in a more VFR, GA oriented direction, I'm all over it.

[SwitchFX]

The idea of multiple worlds sounds rather silly to me. With the advent of DVD and Blu-Ray discs, I imagine it'll be a massive program. How many gigs was FSX at the time of release?

[pyruvate]

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 09:31 PM, said:

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

I've been playing FS9 since for over five years, and NEVER get bored .  FS is just a game you can't get bored w/!

All the more reason why I hope Flight takes a new turn. If you have all you need in FS9, then why would you need something else?

I'd honestly love the idea of having a smaller, but much more detailed world to fly in. Getting FSX to look decent requires shelling out a lot of money, plus if you buy payware aircraft as well...you shouldn't have to pay $200+ for each release. If this is in fact a smaller, more detailed world, than the need to do that is gone.

Or perhaps multiple worlds, to reduce lag in an online world...select if you want to fly in a big city, island chain, mountains...if Flight takes a turn in a more VFR, GA oriented direction, I'm all over it.

FSX was to be the successor to FS9, but the performance just doesn't cut it, it was horribly programmed and was ended as an un-polished program.

I don't like the idea of a smaller world at all, I want the whole earth

Switch, FSX is a dual layer DVD.


And what we need is FS with a new engine, better graphics which are more efficient.  We should have been able to achieve Max settings on FSX with much lower computer power.  We can even get close to maxing it out with the latest hardware and addons.

Edited by pyruvate, 17 August 2010 - 11:15 AM.

[Sam Millar]

Well this could either be good or bad.

If the trailer is actual footage and not rendered game play then the lighting engine looks amazing. On the other hand, like people said, is the title.

The title could just be something cool, and tidied up a little like "Web 2.0" or it could be a high graphical arcade game. I'm rather optimistic but would like to see a little more before making any huge judgement on it.

[Janu]

Absolutely fantastic news, can't wait to find out more about this!

[pyruvate]

Sam Millar, on Aug 17 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

Well this could either be good or bad.

If the trailer is actual footage and not rendered game play then the lighting engine looks amazing. On the other hand, like people said, is the title.

The title could just be something cool, and tidied up a little like "Web 2.0" or it could be a high graphical arcade game. I'm rather optimistic but would like to see a little more before making any huge judgement on it.

I heard that the trailer is the actual game, not a render... But we don't know.

[SwitchFX]

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 09:13 AM, said:

Switch, FSX is a dual layer DVD.

I know how much DVD-9 stores, I'm asking about the installation size.

[pyruvate]

SwitchFX, on Aug 17 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 09:13 AM, said:

Switch, FSX is a dual layer DVD.

I know how much DVD-9 stores, I'm asking about the installation size.

~20GB

Not much considering X Plane is 60 something

[wynthorpe]

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 05:01 PM, said:

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

I've been playing FS9 since for over five years, and NEVER get bored .  FS is just a game you can't get bored w/!

All the more reason why I hope Flight takes a new turn. If you have all you need in FS9, then why would you need something else?

I'd honestly love the idea of having a smaller, but much more detailed world to fly in. Getting FSX to look decent requires shelling out a lot of money, plus if you buy payware aircraft as well...you shouldn't have to pay $200+ for each release. If this is in fact a smaller, more detailed world, than the need to do that is gone.

Or perhaps multiple worlds, to reduce lag in an online world...select if you want to fly in a big city, island chain, mountains...if Flight takes a turn in a more VFR, GA oriented direction, I'm all over it.

That sounds rubbish! Keep it as it is thanks.

[SwitchFX]

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 09:17 AM, said:

SwitchFX, on Aug 17 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 09:13 AM, said:

Switch, FSX is a dual layer DVD.

I know how much DVD-9 stores, I'm asking about the installation size.

~20GB

And it was 2 discs. So  I imagine this, if it's a really good simulator, would be in the neighborhood of 30-50 gigs. I really hope they give the option of using Blu-Ray discs, because if it's just 2 DVD-9 discs, the installation time will take very long. So much data compacted has to be decompressed.

Edited by SwitchFX, 17 August 2010 - 11:19 AM.

[Sam Millar]

what sort of machine are you going to need to run this?

[niteye]

The thing that will be a drag though is getting the features of the addons  into the new Flight. I won't have screaming passengers until they make a FSPassengers version for 'Flight'.

[Prancer]

wynthorpe, on Aug 17 2010, 11:19 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 05:01 PM, said:

pyruvate, on Aug 17 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

I've been playing FS9 since for over five years, and NEVER get bored .  FS is just a game you can't get bored w/!

All the more reason why I hope Flight takes a new turn. If you have all you need in FS9, then why would you need something else?

I'd honestly love the idea of having a smaller, but much more detailed world to fly in. Getting FSX to look decent requires shelling out a lot of money, plus if you buy payware aircraft as well...you shouldn't have to pay $200+ for each release. If this is in fact a smaller, more detailed world, than the need to do that is gone.

Or perhaps multiple worlds, to reduce lag in an online world...select if you want to fly in a big city, island chain, mountains...if Flight takes a turn in a more VFR, GA oriented direction, I'm all over it.

That sounds rubbish! Keep it as it is thanks.

And I think it's 95% rubbish as it is, so bring on the change.

Even more so if it's 30-50 gigs...assuming there's any third party support for add-ons, this thing would end up taking at least half a hard drive.

[pyruvate]

Sam Millar, on Aug 17 2010, 09:50 PM, said:

what sort of machine are you going to need to run this?

Hopefully not as as FSX

Making the game make use of the Graphics card and less CPU intensive would be one thing.

Edited by Brad, 17 August 2010 - 02:07 PM.