45 replies to this topic

[BrandonF]

franthree, on Jan 28 2011, 05:00 PM, said:

I do not know if someone mentioned this before? But methinks "Flight" may be a"cloud" based--streaming game? Featuring multilplayer options and other goodies! Just think-- if you have pc that will handle it---they will do all the upgrades- add-ons --scenry and aircraft! Sounds possible guys?

I take it you didn't read today's news update if you are saying this. I'm especially sure you did not look at the screenshots. And you seem as though you would like this to happen?

[Buziel-411_RED]

franthree, on Jan 28 2011, 07:00 PM, said:

I do not know if someone mentioned this before? But methinks "Flight" may be a"cloud" based--streaming game? Featuring multilplayer options and other goodies! Just think-- if you have pc that will handle it---they will do all the upgrades- add-ons --scenry and aircraft! Sounds possible guys?

Uh... I highly doubt that...

[AirFranceSST]

Read the news post guys.

[Independence76]

Looks generally good, but #4 still has the blurries.

Probably just a few kinks they're working out.

[BlueVanGogh]

pic 1:
likes - depth and elevation of terrain (terrain mesh?), water looks nice in the open and where it meets land, distant textures look great, lots and lots of trees.
dislikes - clouds have little detail, looks like there is night-lighting on during the day? i see spots here and there that are lit up, rivers are running over top of the roads, some textures along the shoreline are blurry/stretched, streams coming down the sides of the mountains appear too big/wide

pic 2:
likes - lighting effect is nicely portrayed and shows off that terrain mesh detail, colors and textures look nice and real, lots o' trees again, the distant valleys look kinda washed out like they do here in the NC mountains when its cloudy.
dislikes - most of the tree trunks look exactly the same especially on the lower left (that just about killed the screenshot for me), jury is still out on those clouds - wish they were a little more detailed.

pic 3:
likes - lots of details on the objects like the stairs, handrails, platforms, antennas, etc..., the textures on the buildings themselves looks good like the metal roof and sides of the buildings are nicely detailed and have a good weathered look to them, the asphalt driveway in the foreground has good looking random cracks in it, grass/dirt areas look very good and realistic.
dislikes - those darn rivers on the side of the mountain on the right. ugh....

pic 4:
the whole picture looks blurry to me, especially the runway lights and night lighting. meh..., the sun has sort of a not-round shape to it but its giving off a nice big round glow around it (didn't really see it unless i look at the smaller version of the screenshot), i like seeing stars though i still feel like those streams are too big, especially over on the small mountain on the right, its just not proportional at all :-/

but in the grand scheme of things, i still like the shots so far and am anxiously awaiting more news as it becomes available.

[CaptainG37]

I have to admit, very nice screenshots.  However, number 3 appears to have too much contrast.
And I echo the feelings of others about Number 4

[MikeMann]

Looking at number 3 I would say that even Orbx would have troubles selling me an update for the Ford Island airfield. Microsoft has certainly put a lot of effort into reproducing this airfield (even though it was closed in 1999).

Regards, Mike Mann

[Buziel-411_RED]

Aside from the first shot, I think these look better than the original Flight photos that were released, and are a step up from FSX. I just wish they could get the blurries worked out...

[AirFranceSST]

Buziel-411_RED, on Jan 29 2011, 01:00 PM, said:

Aside from the first shot, I think these look better than the original Flight photos that were released, and are a step up from FSX. I just wish they could get the blurries worked out...

In response to blurries, I sent out a "Feedback" email.
The more that our voice is cast on something they are more likely to fix it.

They heard us on the online issue. So that's great.

[niteye]

It may be just me but Silverlight is always a pain and sucks major spheres.
On one computer it is slow as heck, on another the videos don't' load, on this one I can't read the news announcements it's just a grey box. Aargh!

[AirFranceSST]

niteye, on Jan 29 2011, 03:25 PM, said:

It may be just me but Silverlight is always a pain and sucks major spheres.
On one computer it is slow as heck, on another the videos don't' load, on this one I can't read the news announcements it's just a grey box. Aargh!

Sounds like you need to give some site feedback.

niteye, on Jan 28 2011, 01:51 PM, said:

My mouth isn't the only thing that is becoming moist.

[trim2level]

Looks way better than FSX, but some of them look over-done, hehe. Just hope it has good frame rates with those graphics and no more upgrading every now and then.

[ARanc]

Anyone mind posting them all on here. Don't feel like installing silverlight to view these.

Thanks

Edited by ARanc, 29 January 2011 - 09:10 PM.

[BrandonF]

ARanc, on Jan 29 2011, 06:10 PM, said:

Anyone mind posting them all on here. Don't feel like installing silverlight to view these.

Thanks

http://www.flickr.co...97280/lightbox/

[Peter797]

looks much better. But the water still looks crap. And I was hoping they'd improve the airport lighting to look more like Xplane ;(

[CaptainG37]

Peter797, on Jan 30 2011, 01:40 PM, said:

And I was hoping they'd improve the airport lighting to look more like Xplane ;(

Can't happen.

(In a slightly biased tone)

[Mohammad]

I'd like to see how mouth-watering it will look in neglected areas, like the Middle East.

[gmasi]

Nothing new here, Still looks like FSX. Not impressed. I see only maybe a 15% difference which will require more memory frame rate hogging.

My Payware Add-Ons for FSX can enhance up to that quality.

[yimmy149]

gmasi,

I haven't seen any payware that can fix the stretched out blurry cliff textures that they seem to have fixed in Flight, so I am excited about that.  Flying in the mountains is pretty disappointing in FSX IMHO.  Although you're right, if performance is even worse than FSX instead of better, it's not worth the tradeoff - I don't fly enough to warrant a new rig for some time.

The overall shading of the terrain looks much better than I've seen in FSX+Payware.  Have they said if they are going to have cloud shadows?  That's one thing that really helps create a sensation of scale in X-Plane scenery.

-james

[BrandonF]

gmasi, on Feb 1 2011, 12:33 PM, said:

Nothing new here, Still looks like FSX. Not impressed. I see only maybe a 15% difference which will require more memory frame rate hogging.

I see several differences. For one, the trees have shadows/sunlight being cast on them. Completely new feature. The terrain textures are no longer stretched by default. Completely new. The ground shadows are soft, not jagged. Completely new. Coded/programmed correctly, these features will have little to no impact on frames. Before jumping to conclusions, learn a little about how games/simulators work.  

Also, the release is probably about a year away. What do you expect from early development screenshots? That's why they are called "development screenshots."  

Edited by BrandonF, 01 February 2011 - 08:16 PM.