52 replies to this topic

[BrandonF]

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

[Buziel-411_RED]

With the exception of the 3rd and 5th, I think these are the best yet. I love the airport details, and #1...

Edited by Buziel-411_RED, 17 March 2011 - 05:19 PM.

[BrandonF]

Yeah, really. What is up with 3 and 5? But that airport detail is amazing. I wonder what airport it is?

Edited by BrandonF, 17 March 2011 - 05:39 PM.

[-Dexter]

What the happened on #3 and #5?

Nevertheless, it looks... slightly better than FSX at these stages. Now if only Microsoft could present some benchmarks...

[BrandonF]

Slightly is a strong word...

[Buziel-411_RED]

BrandonF, on Mar 17 2011, 07:14 PM, said:

Slightly is a strong word...

(Pictures)

What airport is that?

[BrandonF]

Buziel-411_RED, on Mar 17 2011, 04:16 PM, said:

What airport is that?

Honolulu Intl (PHNL)

[ALPHA_FOXTROT_10]

Wow besides the scenery, the aircraft is so detailed in flight!

This is actually looking very promising each time they post these previews

[CaptainG37]

Now we're talking.  Flight is starting to look good.  They're actually adding some detail in the textures and 3D mesh.
I never even realized how bad FSX looks.

[chalbers]

Niiiiice !!

[Daube]

BrandonF, on Mar 17 2011, 07:14 PM, said:

Slightly is a strong word...

Well, the comparison isn't really fair. It's obvious that this airport will be one of the fex "extra-detailled" airports in Flight, just like there were some in FSX, and in FS9 as well. Those "non-default" aiports and cities are built upon aerial pictures, and very airports and cities will be built like this, even in Flight.

CaptainG37, on Mar 18 2011, 12:09 AM, said:

Now we're talking.  Flight is starting to look good.  They're actually adding some detail in the textures and 3D mesh.
I never even realized how bad default FSX looks without any addon.

Fixed.
Now, I would be curious to see how the "non-special" areas will look in Flight, in order to really compare with FSX.

[CaptainG37]

Kind of a fine line.  In Flight, the airport would be considered default.  Regardless if it was being made by a 3rd party company or not.  3rd party commercial add ons develop add ons for an additional cost.

[BrandonF]

Daube, it is a fair comparison. The airport in both shots is default. It may or many not represent the rest of the world's quality, but it is default, comparing one location in FSX to the same location as it is in Flight. nothing unfair about that.

[MikeMann]

BrandonF, on Mar 18 2011, 03:29 PM, said:

Daube, it is a fair comparison. The airport in both shots is default. It may or many not represent the rest of the world's quality, but it is default, comparing one location in FSX to the same location as it is in Flight. nothing unfair about that.

Well to be fair, the FSX shot should be sent through post production like the Microsoft Flight shot was.

Regards, Mike Mann

[BrandonF]

MikeMann, on Mar 18 2011, 05:05 PM, said:

Well to be fair, the FSX shot should be sent through post production like the Microsoft Flight shot was.

Regards, Mike Mann

What do you mean?

[-Dexter]

BrandonF, on Mar 18 2011, 09:21 PM, said:

What do you mean?

Microsoft's image has clearly been modified with a contrast and saturation bump, and a very slight cooling filter.

It should also be noted that we do not have benchmarks for Flight yet. What if Microsoft was getting like 2FPS when they took these screenshots?

Edited by -Dexter, 18 March 2011 - 08:28 PM.

[BrandonF]

-Dexter, on Mar 18 2011, 06:27 PM, said:

Microsoft's image has clearly been modified with a contrast and saturation bump, and a very slight cooling filter.

It should also be noted that we do not have benchmarks for Flight yet. What if Microsoft was getting like 2FPS when they took these screenshots?

I'd say that it's unedited. Coloring does not look changed that much if it is, and the shadowing/haze may give it a edited look, when really, it's just the advanced 3d engine we are seeing.

Quote

It should also be noted that we do not have benchmarks for Flight yet. What if Microsoft was getting like 2FPS when they took these screenshots?

Do you ever think?! MS has mentioned how focused they are on performance this time around. It does not matter what FPS they get in early development as long as we get excellent performance in the end. And how could they be getting 2 FPS in webisodes 2 and 3...they are as smooth as a Maule's engine cowling.

Edited by BrandonF, 18 March 2011 - 08:44 PM.

[MikeMann]

BrandonF, on Mar 18 2011, 06:30 PM, said:

I'd say that it's unedited. Coloring does not look changed that much if it is, and the shadowing/haze may give it a edited look, when really, it's just the advanced 3d engine we are seeing.

What do you mean?

Regards, Mike Mann

[BrandonF]

MikeMann, on Mar 18 2011, 06:43 PM, said:

What do you mean?

Regards, Mike Mann

I didn't quite understand what you were referring to within the screenshots. That's all.

Edited by BrandonF, 18 March 2011 - 08:50 PM.

[MikeMann]

BrandonF, on Mar 18 2011, 06:30 PM, said:

Do you ever think?! MS has mentioned how focused they are on performance this time around. It does not matter what FPS they get in early development as long as we get excellent performance in the end. And how could they be getting 2 FPS in webisodes 2 and 3...they are as smooth as a Maule's engine cowling.

Microsoft wouldn't know how to post edit their webisodes? They might not be Pixar Animation Studios, but I am sure they could fix a little thing like poor FPS or if not then they could outsource it like they did for webisode 1.

Regards, Mike Mann