Jump to content


- - - - -

March Screenshots


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 BrandonF

BrandonF

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 18 March 2011 - 08:59 PM

View PostMikeMann, on Mar 18 2011, 06:53 PM, said:

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

Yeah, you can turn 2 FPS into 60 FPS real easily.  :hrmm:

#22 MikeMann

MikeMann

    Student Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 18 March 2011 - 09:07 PM

View PostBrandonF, on Mar 18 2011, 06:59 PM, said:

Yeah, you can turn 2 FPS into 60 FPS real easily.  :hrmm:

Yes, you sure can.  :hrmm:

Regards, Mike Mann

#23 -Dexter

-Dexter

    Supersonic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,183 posts
  • Location:West Virginia, USA

Posted 18 March 2011 - 09:23 PM

View PostBrandonF, on Mar 18 2011, 09:30 PM, said:

MS has mentioned how focused they are on performance this time around.
Citation needed.

#24 BrandonF

BrandonF

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 18 March 2011 - 09:42 PM

View Post-Dexter, on Mar 18 2011, 07:23 PM, said:

Citation needed.

News From the Development Team: (Dec 8th)

"...achieving better performance on today's hardware..."

Blog Post from Microsoft Games Studios member:

"Performance is about priority number one from day one"


PC Pilot Magazine Issue 72:

"We want to simplify the growing performance and graphics requirements.

Without getting into gameplay or feature details, some of the key differences will revolve around addressing performance concerns and optimizing the code base for the future. After 30 years of growing the same Flight Simulator code base, it has gotten a little fat and happy."


I've also come across a few other various articles in the past that I cannot relocate that said a few things similar to those mentioned above.

#25 -Dexter

-Dexter

    Supersonic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,183 posts
  • Location:West Virginia, USA

Posted 19 March 2011 - 01:05 PM

^

I ask because of what a representative said in the beginning:

Quote

Asked if Microsoft still planned to cater for those that spend large sums of money to upgrade PC rigs for games, Luehmann confirmed the company is staying with the core.
http://pc.gamespy.co.../1117073p1.html

#26 ChaoticBeauty

ChaoticBeauty

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts

Posted 19 March 2011 - 01:48 PM

Wow, Flight is looking better and better with each screenshot release. I wish #3 and #5 were captured at high resolution though.

About performance problems on webisodes: Don't forget that Flight is still at an early stage, and Microsoft is still optimising the bloated FSX engine. I don't expect miracles, but I'm sure Flight performance on release will be acceptable, considering it will have lots of things to render.

#27 BrandonF

BrandonF

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 19 March 2011 - 05:25 PM

View Post-Dexter, on Mar 19 2011, 11:05 AM, said:

^

I ask because of what a representative said in the beginning:
http://pc.gamespy.co.../1117073p1.html

First of all, I'm skeptical to read/go by an article on the gamespy website, keeping in mind that MS dumped them for the multiplayer client in Flight. Second, this is just my opinion, but maybe Microsoft will be optimizing the code so that those with lower end systems can enjoy Flight with very reasonable FPS, while those with high end systems can get a whole lot more out of the graphics with good FPS. Maybe?

#28 -Dexter

-Dexter

    Supersonic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,183 posts
  • Location:West Virginia, USA

Posted 19 March 2011 - 06:01 PM

View PostBrandonF, on Mar 19 2011, 06:25 PM, said:

First of all, I'm skeptical to read/go by an article on the gamespy website, keeping in mind that MS dumped them for the multiplayer client in Flight. Second, this is just my opinion, but maybe Microsoft will be optimizing the code so that those with lower end systems can enjoy Flight with very reasonable FPS, while those with high end systems can get a whole lot more out of the graphics with good FPS. Maybe?
Microsoft doesn't need to optimize a game to sell it. FSX was a very clear example of that.


But I agree with you 110%. If Microsoft did nothing more than optimize FSX to get 40FPS on a standard system with standard settings, plastered 'Flight' on the box and sold it, I will purchase it at full price.

Edited by -Dexter, 19 March 2011 - 06:03 PM.


#29 BrandonF

BrandonF

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 19 March 2011 - 07:06 PM

View Post-Dexter, on Mar 19 2011, 04:01 PM, said:

Microsoft doesn't need to optimize a game to sell it. FSX was a very clear example of that.
But I agree with you 110%. If Microsoft did nothing more than optimize FSX to get 40FPS on a standard system with standard settings, plastered 'Flight' on the box and sold it, I will purchase it at full price.

I Agree, especially if all the bugs/problems were fixed, which I can't imagine them not be. (the dev team might get annoyed enough by the FSX bugs to actually do something!  :hrmm: )

PS: I wasn't saying that they would optimize the code to sell it, but rather so that more people can experience it the best way possible. For them, they will want as many sales as possible, so while it would be a good idea for them to optimize it for multiple systems, it may not happen. But we can only hope.

Edited by BrandonF, 19 March 2011 - 07:08 PM.


#30 Romario_

Romario_

    Commercial Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,257 posts
  • Location:Miami.

Posted 19 March 2011 - 07:46 PM

Looks nice! I am assuming Fall or Christmas 2011..

Edited by Romario_, 19 March 2011 - 07:47 PM.


#31 _TW_

_TW_

    First Class Member\Screenshot Hotshot of 2004

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,474 posts
  • Location:Baden-Baden, Germany

Posted 19 March 2011 - 07:55 PM

I don't see any screenshots on their site.  Did they take them down?

#32 Buziel-411_RED

Buziel-411_RED

    Screenshot Hotshot Nov '11

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,042 posts
  • Location:KSEA

Posted 19 March 2011 - 08:07 PM

View PostToby Werner, on Mar 19 2011, 07:55 PM, said:

I don't see any screenshots on their site.  Did they take them down?

You can switch between video and picture tabs above the Webisodes.

#33 touchdown

touchdown

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Location:Madison, WI [KMSN]

Posted 20 March 2011 - 04:28 PM

Glad to see microsoft has really ramped up the default aircraft quality.
As far as I can see:
-higher res textures
-better, more detailed self-shadow
-darker, more realistic gauges

Hope they put vcrain back. Sorely missed it in fsx.

#34 Daube

Daube

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:20 AM

View PostBrandonF, on Mar 18 2011, 05:29 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.

No it is not fair to compare a "detailled" area with a "generic" (which is the term I should have used instead of "default").

#35 ChaoticBeauty

ChaoticBeauty

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 03:11 PM

View Posttouchdown, on Mar 20 2011, 11:28 PM, said:

As far as I can see:
-higher res textures
-better, more detailed self-shadow
-darker, more realistic gauges

Also lighting has been improved a lot. Environments look more visually pleasing and less flat.

#36 ian

ian

    Student Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 March 2011 - 04:28 PM

I have just had an eye orgasm!  :hrmm:

Flight Sim X looks like an ABORTION compared to MS Flight! :hrmm:

#37 franthree

franthree

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,271 posts
  • Location:New York,N.Y. U.S.A.

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:16 PM

Do not mind so much the default FSX airports ( Flight seems to have promise) but how about some nice textures on default Aircraft for 'Flight" ? FSX aircraft textures are crap! :hrmm:

Edited by franthree, 21 March 2011 - 07:16 PM.


#38 -Dexter

-Dexter

    Supersonic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,183 posts
  • Location:West Virginia, USA

Posted 21 March 2011 - 08:57 PM

View Postfranthree, on Mar 21 2011, 08:16 PM, said:

FSX textures are crap! :hrmm:
Fixed.


FSX ground textures especially. :hrmm:

#39 BrandonF

BrandonF

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:23 PM

View PostDaube, on Mar 21 2011, 05:20 AM, said:

No it is not fair to compare a "detailled" area with a "generic" (which is the term I should have used instead of "default").

I compared the exact same location as it looks in FSX and in Flight. There's nothing wrong with that. The point is to show what the same location looks like in both sims. It's a fair comparison.

#40 CaptainG37

CaptainG37

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 492 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 01:55 AM

View PostBrandonF, on Mar 22 2011, 02:23 PM, said:

I compared the exact same location as it looks in FSX and in Flight. There's nothing wrong with that. The point is to show what the same location looks like in both sims. It's a fair comparison.

I don't think that's what Daube meant.  I think he means that because 3rd party developers have been contracted to do SOME airport, we shouldn't use those as comparisons to default airports in FSX.
Regardless, the team making Flight seems like they want to show off the highlights of Flight rather than the mostly generic stuff.  

It's a fine line.  I can see Daubes point, but I also consider anything done by anybody contracted to work on Flight to be default.
Even if PMDG worked on Flight and made a 737 with MOST systems modeled, it would still be default.