143 replies to this topic

[Elukka]

It's not just unspectacular, it looks just like FSX. I could honestly not tell it was a different game were it not labeled so.
I guess it's possible we'll get a ton of other improvements and the graphics will improve... We'll see.

wynthorpe, on Oct 22 2010, 11:39 PM, said:

Negative Nancies you lot aren't you! I think this looks pretty good to be honest, look in the back ground at the autogen and mountains, no blurries and LOADS of buildings and trees.

FSX promotional material also had tons of autogen and no blurries.

Edited by Elukka, 22 October 2010 - 11:12 PM.

[Romario_]

DID YOU SEE THAT!!! the ground texture where the city/suburb starts resembles FS9   ..

Microsoft, I have now just lost all hope. It's like FS2005.

[MattGarner]

Still early days to be honest, we shall see....

[Flying_Scotsman]

No wonder they didn't show that video at the beginning!!  

They didn't even take the microstutters out of it!!

[_BD6_]

Maybe they are just showing the aircraft in FSX? /shrug

If you look closer, it looks like they didn't bother to do the taxiway textures so maybe they just threw a runway together for the sole purpose of this video.

[Angelo Cosma]

Is the general consensus that the "New" FSX Flight, is going to be released rather soon? Soon being 4 to 5 months, If not, then isn't rather early to be saying: this is bad, that is off, this looks the same as FS9, omg I hat Microsoft now, plus we don't what system they ran it on, we don't know if they improved the gaming engine to take better use of our CPU's and GPU's. Plus this is a Work In Progress, and to be honest I would much rather have them release videos of what the Sim MIGHT look like then just leave us in the dark, until its released, then we run off to the store to buy it, and install it just to be disappointed. I am not saying thats the case, but if that does happen and all they changed was the way the SIM handled itself performance wise, I will tell you there will be alot of Happy People here, including me.

[niteye]

The shadow is improved over FSX, but it is still of low quality if you compare it to GTA4. Infact it's much like the shadows in GTA4 on the low or medium setting. (you might find I refer to GTA4 a lot, it's the only other game that I have )

Also it makes sense to assume that the videos are footage of the best things. Like in movie trailers, the best jokes or coolest parts are shown in the trailer, preview screenshots are always near max quality. From a marketing point of view it makes no sense to show something in a crappier light than it could be shown. Which makes me believe that the game will actually look worse on the average computer once we actually get to play it.

On the other hand, I thought that the camera movements looked rather amateuristic, so the people who made the movie might just have not been that skilled in making videos. And we are now all so disappointed that perhaps the end product will not seem so bad anymore with our low expectations.

[seat183]

The video won't show for me anyone have another link?

[Jetset]

OK, so we have great visuals in the first two clips then what resembles FSX/FS9 in the latest.
I was at least hoping to be fed a little more of the same. Now I'm all disapointed..

[RIDZ_YSSY]

I think x-plane 10 has got this one..

[pyruvate]

uber-N69204, on Oct 23 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

Maybe they are just showing the aircraft in FSX? /shrug

If you look closer, it looks like they didn't bother to do the taxiway textures so maybe they just threw a runway together for the sole purpose of this video.

That's what I was thinking too, because the runway textures are just like FSX.

Who knows, MS is just teasing us, but this wasn't a good one

And pwn you beat me to it , but I AM DISAPPOINT!


On the other hand, if this is just an FSX with cream and cherry, as Indy said, I hope it actually works.

BUT, if Microsoft has any chance to crack this one:

1. It should use MORE THAN 1 core.
2. The new graphics technologies which are available.
3. Last but not the least, not crash every other flight

Edited by pyruvate, 23 October 2010 - 09:42 AM.

[CaptainG37]

Too many people got excited at the first video.  However, it is not uncommon to make highly realistic Animation renders to promote a product.  
Example


I honestly cannot see anything in the 2nd and 3rd videos that looks any different to FSX.
The 1st video was most likely a hi res animation NOT taken in the actual sim.
But, as was said, still too early to make any kind of a judgement call.  I just hope it's not a blatant attempt at reselling a glorified FSX.

[Buziel-411_RED]

wynthorpe, on Oct 22 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

Negative Nancies you lot aren't you! I think this looks pretty good to be honest, look in the back ground at the autogen and mountains, no blurries and LOADS of buildings and trees.

I thought the background looked blurry to me...

Honestly, that video was not very graphically impressive, but it did look like an improvement over default FSX. The lighting in the sky looked better (sorta of a bloom effect I guess) and the shadows were much nicer. However, if 00:12 is any indication, I think runways will remain as flat as a pancake.

If Microsoft can at least get the performance and stability part down, then developers can improve the graphics.

[Independence76]

I can only hope that the video we just saw was made through only 20% of development.  

[BrandonF]

Anyone know what airport was used in the video?  

[LA_PHX]

Something tells me that most of you that are here criticizing a VERY EARLY PREVIEW/ADVERTISING video will probably buy it anyways.  Let's face it, how many of us fly all the default stuff?  I think we all get a new sim and then immediately, or shortly after checking out the sim. in its entire default state, go searching for addons.

[-Dexter]

LA_BOS, on Oct 23 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

Something tells me that most of you that are here criticizing a VERY EARLY PREVIEW/ADVERTISING video will probably buy it anyways.  Let's face it, how many of us fly all the default stuff?  I think we all get a new sim and then immediately, or shortly after checking out the sim. in its entire default state, go searching for addons.

*Provided the sim runs well in it's default state. If I'm going to get only 15fps out of Microsoft Flight on default settings, that is a clear failure in my eyes. I hope to god that they aren't going to keep building on the FSX engine.

[RIDZ_YSSY]

Is it a possibility that they are using the fsx engine to show off the detail of the aircraft? just like x-plane done in some screenshots where they used the x plane 9 engine to show off the detail of the aircraft?

[Peter797]

RIDZ_YSSY, on Oct 23 2010, 07:46 PM, said:

Is it a possibility that they are using the fsx engine to show off the detail of the aircraft? just like x-plane done in some screenshots where they used the x plane 9 engine to show off the detail of the aircraft?

That's a great possibility. Otherwise I don't see any difference in development between MS Flight and FSX.

[Alex Bailey]

Well hopefully between Microsoft, Aerosoft, and Cascade Game Foundry we will have at least one good flight sim.  
But honestly this??  They outta just call it Microsoft Flight X