100 replies to this topic

[BrandonF]

So far, I have done comparisons with screenshots 3, 5, and 6 of Flight with FSX. I plan on doing the others as soon as I find the locations. Until then, here are the current ones.


Screenshot 3





Screenshot 5





Screenshot 6





I can already tell you screenshot 4 won't be easy to replicate!  

[wynthorpe]

Flight looks a million times better to me! Can tel some one else has been doing the land textures.

[ollyau]

Wow, those are quite good.  I'm impressed!

Definitely liking Flight as well .

[Daube]

Once again, we shouldn't expect the same level of detail on the whole planet.
The place shown in those Flight screenshots is obviously one of the "extra-detailled" places, just like St.Marteen was in FSX. Very few places in FSX were as detailled as St.Marteen, so will it be for Flight.

[Peter797]

To be honest....I don't see much advancements. Other than...the aircraft looks better. I guess the water?

The land textures look more real...but still blurry.

The sky looks just like FSX crappy sky. I donno man.

[mhockey21]

Peter797, on Jan 10 2011, 06:23 AM, said:

To be honest....I don't see much advancements. Other than...the aircraft looks better. I guess the water?

The land textures look more real...but still blurry.

The sky looks just like FSX crappy sky. I donno man.

Which is why, aside from the sky part there are people who make add ons to make things look better!

[wynthorpe]

Peter797, on Jan 10 2011, 02:23 PM, said:

To be honest....I don't see much advancements. Other than...the aircraft looks better. I guess the water?

The land textures look more real...but still blurry.

The sky looks just like FSX crappy sky. I donno man.

Ah the good old blurrie! Something to behold.... erm i mean try and get rid of! Bet XP10 won't have no blurries

[MikeMann]

FSX appears to be placing way more trees into the scenery than Flight does. Maybe that's how Flight will perform better; cut the autogen trees to a fraction of the number generated in FSX. I wonder if the autogen buildings will be the same.

Regards, Mike Mann

[Mohammad]

They hand pick the best places, which is about 0.01% of the total planet.
Let's compare, for example, Kuwait in FSX and Flight. Don't think there'd be a difference.

[Buziel-411_RED]

The ground and water in Flight look better, but the sky and clouds still look rather cruddy.

Honestly, I don't really care how it looks, as long as it's as good or better than FSX. Just give me smooth frames.

[Peter797]

That's ridiculous though. Paying for something which they've fixed after like 5 years lol.


XP10 better be good. I've got more faith in it.

[Romario_]

Tbh, I'm not surprised at the way Flight looks. I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope that they address the errors, and stability issues that were with FSX. So basically, give me FSX improved looks with FS9 rock solid stability and performance!

[Peter797]

Romario_, on Jan 10 2011, 10:24 PM, said:

Tbh, I'm not surprised at the way Flight looks. I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope that they address the errors, and stability issues that were with FSX. So basically, give me FSX improved looks with FS9 rock solid stability and performance!

I guess that's the most we can expect from MS when it comes to FS.

[BrandonF]

Flight only looks similar to FSX because some of the same textures are being used and it's in early development. Remember the last webisode? Compare the scenery in that with the screenshots. Quite an improvement. Also, considering this blog post by a former ACES team member rehired to work on Flight and the fact that a guy who went to the Flight Simulator Developer's Conference said they might be rebuilding everything except the scenery part of the engine, I'd say Flight is being built mostly from scratch code-wise. It appears they are slowly replacing textures, but they are getting there. That said, the concerns that the same FSX bugs will occur in Flight should be relieved. If not, oh well; I tried.  

[krobatshov]

While my preference at present is on the XP side, I'm glad they're working on something new. Even this one looks like a slightly improved FSX version, add on compatibility, but most importantly, hardware performance improvements is what I'm expecting to see.

Given the breath of add ons available & in development for FSX, the criteria above should finally give us what we've all been waiting for since the beginning of the post FS9 era. FSX+ graphics + performance. Yea, FS would indeed have a wider audience, i.e. those who lacked OC'ed machines and stuff. Don't get me wrong, I used to be an avid fs9 pilot (still I am...), and my aviation & IT interest is above average. But heck, while $,$$$ + knowledge/reading thru OC stuff is one thing, taking time doing that creates boundaries. (yea, call me a noob and old fashioned, but it's just the way it is - therefore, the statement of a WIDER AUDIENCE target, while at the same time might include those avg. joe guys they might intending to get into flying, is primarily about getting the "others", non OC'ers, lazy guys, etc. back ...)

As for the images above, yea, on any given day, the default XP 9 landscape at HI settings look better to me than this. But then again, they're just at the beginning of the dev. stage...

[Atomic_Sheep]

I don't get it, what are blurries?

[Buziel-411_RED]

Atomic_Sheep, on Jan 11 2011, 07:34 PM, said:

I don't get it, what are blurries?

Blurry ground textures...

[BrandonF]

Comparison of screenshot 2 is done. MS actually flipped their screenshot horizontally, so I did the same with this one.





@ all negative nancies: It's quite stupid to make bad comments on a game not even release and in early development. It's pointless. Just wait to see/use the completed product, then trash it with all the negativity you want.

[Daube]

BrandonF, have you installed the mountain mod for FSX ?

[Atomic_Sheep]

Rudolph-411, on Jan 12 2011, 12:59 PM, said:

Blurry ground textures...

I get that bit, I just don't see any... can someone point them out for me?