56 replies to this topic

[fsxnate]

If Flight takes advantage of newer hardware this is all I absolutely need in order to buy Flight.  Currently my FSX serves my needs for graphics give or take but I don't like my frames a whole lot though they are enough to use for now.  The performance and how well Flight will take advantage of newer hardware is my selling point.  Is this anyone Else's selling point?

The other selling point is either third party add on capability or the willingness of third party developers to take advantage of Flight if it proves successful.

[_BD6_]

fsxnate, on Dec 22 2010, 06:02 PM, said:

If Flight takes advantage of newer hardware this is all I absolutely need in order to buy Flight.  Currently my FSX serves my needs for graphics give or take but I don't like my frames a whole lot though they are enough to use for now.  The performance and how well Flight will take advantage of newer hardware is my selling point.  Is this anyone Else's selling point?

The other selling point is either third party add on capability or the willingness of third party developers to take advantage of Flight if it proves successful.

If it even looked the exact same as FSX, but ran so much better (being able to use bloom, max 2x water, max autogen and still get high FPS and an uber smooth experience) I would definitely get it.

[PrivateCustard]

I'd like it to be programmed properly so I don't need to spend 90% of my time messing around with settings and cfg files, only to end up with more problems and an end result that totally goes against what my system should be producing.

Getting bored now!!

[Flying_Pie]

I'd like the whole experience become easier. It takes hours for me to setup the sim how I like it, which I'd like to see changed definitely.

[Buziel-411_RED]

The biggest thing for me will be performance and graphics. However, even if those two areas are improved, I probably won't buy it right away as there will be very few addons available.

By the way, is anyone else kind of excited about the new online possibilities that might be opened up? I mainly tuned out Microsoft's babble about GFWL and online interaction, but I might it might be interesting what they come up with.

[fsxnate]

"By the way, is anyone else kind of excited about the new online possibilities that might be opened up? I mainly tuned out Microsoft's babble about GFWL and online interaction, but I might it might be interesting what they come up with. "

Yeah, the performance is really the only deciding factor for me.  The GFWL does sound interesting, and will certainly be a lot more optimized then any multi-player ability FSX certainly has for sure.  I am concerned however for the different levels of Simmers joining together.  While the concept as a whole is a good idea, especially to expand the franchise, I hope they address this as a concern as well.  Why a concern? well, as we know the new kids on the block to aviation can give quite the aerobatic display to say the least .   I would like to be able to have sessions set aside for serious simmers so the experience becomes more realistic.

[-Dexter]

1. We need a better game engine. It needs to perform better at least.

2. At the same time, we like the ability to customize game files. Makes it easy to correct problems and such.

[_NW_]

ClarkGriswold, on Dec 22 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

If it even looked the exact same as FSX, but ran so much better (being able to use bloom, max 2x water, max autogen and still get high FPS and an uber smooth experience) I would definitely get it.

That's all I'm hoping for..  then I can enjoy flying helicopters around cities like New York City, CHicago, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc..

[Mohammad]

ClarkGriswold, on Dec 22 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

If it even looked the exact same as FSX, but ran so much better (being able to use bloom, max 2x water, max autogen and still get high FPS and an uber smooth experience) I would definitely get it.

Same here. Performance was the real disappointment with FSX.

[-Dexter]

I'd like a mission/money feature.

Do this mission -> earn money -> spend money on new aircraft / aircraft upgrades.

[BrandonF]

The_Grinch, on Dec 23 2010, 06:41 AM, said:

2. At the same time, we like the ability to customize game files. Makes it easy to correct problems and such.

That would never happen. MS wouldn't want people to be able to see how they programmed anything or allow any changes other than aircraft, scenery, and textures.

[Romario_]

The_Grinch, on Dec 23 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

I'd like a mission/money feature.

Do this mission -> earn money -> spend money on new aircraft / aircraft upgrades.

FsPassengers kind of simulates that though in FSX and FS9. Many addon developers are actually working wit MS now, so lets keep out finger's crossed!

My biggest thing is backwards compatibility with aircraft and scenery that has been made for FSX.

[Buziel-411_RED]

Santa_Claus, on Dec 23 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

My biggest thing is backwards compatibility with aircraft and scenery that has been made for FSX.

That's what got us into our current performance mess with FSX. If we want better performance, it means leaving behind the old engine.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind at all if there was no backwards compatibility with past addons, as long as performance was greatly improved.

Edited by Rudolph-411, 23 December 2010 - 08:27 PM.

[Flying_Pie]

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about the inner workings of a video game, because I don't. But what I do know is that when I picked up FS98 back in 1997, it used virtually all the same file formats and folder organization as FSX does. That suggests to me that very little has been done to modernize the game

[Mohammad]

Rudolph-411, on Dec 23 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind at all if there was no backwards compatibility with past addons, as long as performance was greatly improved.

We're that desperate, aren't we?

[Spam]

Much more realism to airports, And dynamic lighted objects like Xplane has incorporated.  

[fsxnate]

Mohammad, on Dec 26 2010, 03:07 AM, said:

We're that desperate, aren't we?

lol its so true mainly because it will just be so exciting to see newer hardware beatin on a new simulator!

Edited by fsxnate, 26 December 2010 - 09:00 AM.

[Mohammad]

Of course and it should be. I like the fact everyone is now concerned about the next flying game becoming more hardware efficient. This is something I've never seen prior to the release of past FS titles. People were more interested in others things, naively thinking that any system upgrade would suffice the performance regulations required by the new game. This time, however, there's a lot more emphasis from the community on making a simulator that could run properly on normal hardware and within the time frame of the game's development.

Having said that, my side wish is that Microsoft focus on improving sceneries in places that they know aren't going to be modified by any add-on softwares. For example, they should focus on Middle Eastern landmarks and show a little bit of 'globalization' in their new MS Flight.

[-Dexter]

Hughes-MDflyer4, on Dec 23 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

That would never happen. MS wouldn't want people to be able to see how they programmed anything or allow any changes other than aircraft, scenery, and textures.

At no point did I assume Microsoft would give out the FS source code? From FS'95 to FSX we've been able to modify CFG files. I just hope MS doesn't remove this. The ability to tweak files to adjust scenery or textures is what a lot of games (read: Call of Duty) need to give their users.

[fsxnate]

I def agree with you Grinch, it will be nice to tweak this as well.  I think being able to modify files will help market Flight for third party development

Edited by fsxnate, 27 December 2010 - 07:05 AM.