162 replies to this topic

[Spam]

-Dexter, on May 2 2011, 10:10 AM, said:

I just hope they don't expect everyone to buy a new PC/hardware for MS Flight.

You know what I'd really like?

Area-specific scenery. Like, areas of 15-20 sq. miles with very high quality static scenery, where the engine renders only that area, and thus a much higher framerate. When you meet the boundary of the area, it will load the next high detail area.

This would be a system where the engine would only need to render, in detail, the area that the player is flying in.

Ever played ARMA II? Exceptional performance, even in dense towns and forests (of course, the downside here is that the area being rendered is much smaller than what FSX renders). This type of high performance and high detail is phenomenal for chopper flying or low-flying GA exploration.

It would lead to much better performance.

Huh??   The  engine renders only the area that your flying in now...ever wonder why you get bluries and autogen popping? i can see where your coming from but i think you have it a little mixed up. then performance comes into how the engine is designed and coded to use the available CPU, GPU and memory effectively. FSX does not do this well at all. Hence poor performance.

[Alaska_MD-83]

-Dexter, on May 2 2011, 08:10 AM, said:

I just hope they don't expect everyone to buy a new PC/hardware for MS Flight.

You know what I'd really like?

Area-specific scenery. Like, areas of 15-20 sq. miles with very high quality static scenery, where the engine renders only that area, and thus a much higher framerate. When you meet the boundary of the area, it will load the next high detail area.

This would be a system where the engine would only need to render, in detail, the area that the player is flying in.

Ever played ARMA II? Exceptional performance, even in dense towns and forests (of course, the downside here is that the area being rendered is much smaller than what FSX renders). This type of high performance and high detail is phenomenal for chopper flying or low-flying GA exploration.

It would lead to much better performance.

If you've ever built your own scenery you'll learn that FS has different levels of Detail. The closer you get, the more detail, the farther, less. If you go far enough, it'll vanish all together.

FS already works like that, and since this is a flight simulator, and you need to fly places (Instead of trotting around on foot) it needs to render miles, not yards.

[Mohammad]

-Dexter, on May 2 2011, 10:10 AM, said:

I just hope they don't expect everyone to buy a new PC/hardware for MS Flight.

Honest camel here, but I really wouldn't mind paying money for a newly upgraded PC/hardware, just as long as Microsoft Flight can actually work well with it. Know what I mean?

In 2003, when I first got FS2004, I had to upgrade. After upgrading, the game worked amazingly well in high settings.
Problem with FSX wasn't that you needed an upgrade. Instead the problem was that the game just couldn't function properly, regardless of how many upgrades you made.

So to be fairly honest here, I don't mind upgrading. I don't mind splashing the money, but I only hope that it will actually improve the game's performance and not disappoint me like FSX did.