162 replies to this topic

[BrandonF]

The first screenshots have been published on the MS Flight website!

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

For those that can't see them, visit this link:

http://www.flickr.co...37520/lightbox/

[Buziel-411_RED]

Those actually look pretty good.

Now, let's just cross our fingers for performance...

[Mr. Schutte]

Wow that looks much better than FSX he said sarcastically.

I guess we can simply hope performance is the primary upgrade.

[-Dexter]

Not much different from FSX. Obviously the aircrafts have higher resolution textures, the autogen is slightly better looking, but for the most part it looks like FSX with a scenery addon and a high resolution aircraft texture.

But that isn't the point. The point is, Flight is getting close!

I agree with Buizel, I want to see performance.

[_BD6_]

The_Grinch, on Dec 23 2010, 02:26 PM, said:

Not much different from FSX. Obviously the aircrafts have higher resolution textures, the autogen is slightly better looking, but for the most part it looks like FSX with a scenery addon and a high resolution aircraft texture.

But that isn't the point. The point is, Flight is getting close!

I agree with Buizel, I want to see performance.

It looks like the mesh resolution is higher as well, the mountains look like... mountains. I've said it before, even if it looked just like FSX, but with tons more performance.. I'm all in. Wonder if FSX add-ons would work with it.

[Daube]

ClarkGriswold, on Dec 23 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

It looks like the mesh resolution is higher as well, the mountains look like... mountains. I've said it before, even if it looked just like FSX, but with tons more performance.. I'm all in. Wonder if FSX add-ons would work with it.

The default mesh you mean ?
FSX can display 1m meshes. The only problem is that such precise meshes are not available yet, payware or freeware.
The best I've seen so far is the default Mt.St-Helens included in Acceleration, with a very cool 3m mesh.

I took a close look to the screenshots and they just look exactely like FSX to me.
The only real difference I have spotted (not sure, perhaps you can confirm ?) is that the autogen situated in the shadow of a mountain seems to be shadowed as well.
That would be cool, together with the improved aircraft shadows we could see in the video.
As for the aircraft textures, they may look better than default FSX, but not better than most payware addons with >1024 textures...

[Buziel-411_RED]

While the graphics look better than default FSX, FSX loaded up with Orbx, REX, and a good Carenado, PMDG, or IRIS aircraft still blow Flight out of the water, at least going by what we've seen of it.

However, that's okay, because I really expect Microsoft to outdo the payware developers. I mean, default aircraft in FSX didn't really look better than good payware aircraft in Fs9, I'm sure there were payware clouds for Fs9 that looked better than default FSX clouds, etc.

But, hopefully, the steps taken to improve performance will also open up new doors for Flight developers, allowing them to make products that wouldn't be graphically possible in FSX.

[BrandonF]

If anyone says it doesn't look much different than FSX, you must be blind. Look closely and you will see all sorts of improvements that make it look way better than FSX. If it looks like this and performs great out of the box, which I'm sure it will, that will be great! Imagine what companies like Orbx could then do with it!  

[clum]

Honestly, who cares what it looks like a this point because lets face it, who runs a default sim? Once the add-on dev's have had their way with the sim it will surely look at least as good, if not better than FSX.

The primary concern is that the long standing bugs/problems from the MSFS series are corrected. Give me good performance on current hardware at time of release, no such thing as stutters and blurries,and a rock solid platform that's not in danger of crashing every two minutes and I'll be one happy customer. Any visual improvements are gravy. That being said, I'd still love my cloud shadows, proper dynamic lighting and sloped runways

Edited by clum, 23 December 2010 - 04:18 PM.

[nw757]

Looks good, but as clum said, do we care how it looks? Not entirely. Maybe that's why people still use FS9 as there have been addons throughout the years to enhance it's look. As long as Flight has a nice performance boost (no tweaking this and that either) and possibly compatibility (in some way or another) with previous addons, then I'm good.

[Jetset]

I'm very happy with the amount of regular updates we are getting at the moment and hope it continues.
Gives us all something to chew on.

As for the screens. Yeah it does look like FSX with some subtle enhancements, but I'm with everyone else in that if the performance is as good as we're led to believe, then I'll be happy also.

[Daube]

Hughes-MDflyer4, on Dec 23 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

If anyone says it doesn't look much different than FSX, you must be blind. Look closely and you will see all sorts of improvements that make it look way better than FSX. If it looks like this and performs great out of the box, which I'm sure it will, that will be great! Imagine what companies like Orbx could then do with it!  

Really ? Show us ! What exactely in those shots look better than FSX with freeware or payware addons ?
Aircraft ? No.
Ground textures ? No.
Water ? No.
Mesh/Landclass ? No.
Clouds/Sky ? No.
So far the one and only thing we've seen that look better in MS Flight than in FSX is the shadow effect, nothing else.

Edited by Daube, 23 December 2010 - 05:11 PM.

[flyhalf]

I'm not really that moved by these screenshots. It just looks like the first shots of FSX. We have seen this all before.

[BrandonF]

For anyone who doesn't think Flight looks much better than FSX, here is a comparison to prove you wrong.  





The FSX shot was taken with terrain settings maxed out. If you open each  screenshot in a new tab and flip back and fourth between them, you'll  see that different parts of them almost match up. (I did my best at  lining up the FSX shot)

[Buziel-411_RED]

While the Flight shot doesn't exactly "wow" me as the clouds, sky, and water are nothing compared to REX, and Orbx blows the scenery out of the water... It does look better than default FSX, specifically the ground textures, autogen density, and mesh.

EDIT: Hughes, where is that?

Edited by Rudolph-411, 23 December 2010 - 07:51 PM.

[BrandonF]

The Flight Webisode 2 and the screenshots were taken at the island of Hilo, Hawaii.  

[stonelance]

Rudolph-411, on Dec 23 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

EDIT: Hughes, where is that?

Waipi'o Valley, Hawaii

http://www.bing.com/...&...ii&q=hawaii

Edited by stonelance, 23 December 2010 - 08:16 PM.

[Prancer]

Rudolph-411, on Dec 23 2010, 06:50 PM, said:

While the Flight shot doesn't exactly "wow" me as the clouds, sky, and water are nothing compared to REX, and Orbx blows the scenery out of the water... It does look better than default FSX, specifically the ground textures, autogen density, and mesh.

EDIT: Hughes, where is that?

Wasn't Orbx and REX working with the Flight team?

[Buziel-411_RED]

Prancer, on Dec 23 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

Wasn't Orbx and REX working with the Flight team?

If so, it boosts Flight's chances of success in my eyes, as I put a little bit more trust in them than Microsoft's coders.

Edited by Rudolph-411, 23 December 2010 - 08:18 PM.

[Buziel-411_RED]

I took a screenshot of the location in my version of FSX. Relevant addons include REX, GEX, and FsGenesis Mesh.