52 replies to this topic

[Daube]

BrandonF, on Mar 21 2011, 10:23 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.

Shoud I explain you the definition of "generic" and "detailled" or will you figure it out by yourself ?
Seeing a generic airport will help judging the general level of detail we'll get in the Flight world.
Seeing a detailled aiport will not,  because we know there will be only a few airports detailled like that in the Flight world.
So yes, Honolulu will definitely look better in Flight than it looked in FSX, right. But that doesn't help the comparison of the "normal" areas.

-Dexter, on Mar 21 2011, 08:57 PM, said:

Fixed.
FSX ground textures especially.

I liked the ground textures in FSX.
The landclasses were stupid though, but the textures themselves were not bad at all, especially compared to FS9.
For example, Switzerland doesn't look so good by default, but once you install just a good landclass, it starts to look real good, even with default textures.

EDIT: here is how it looks with just a landclass that places the textures in a smarter way. I don't think that looks bad.

Edited by Daube, 22 March 2011 - 05:19 AM.

[Daube]

Another example, still default textures:


But yes, what can be said is that the default landclass and mesh are totally ugly.

[BrandonF]

Daube, on Mar 22 2011, 03:14 AM, said:

Shoud I explain you the definition of "generic" and "detailled" or will you figure it out by yourself ?
Seeing a generic airport will help judging the general level of detail we'll get in the Flight world.
Seeing a detailled aiport will not,  because we know there will be only a few airports detailled like that in the Flight world.
So yes, Honolulu will definitely look better in Flight than it looked in FSX, right. But that doesn't help the comparison of the "normal" areas.

I am comparing the same location in both sims regardless of the detail. Default is default. It's the same location. It's what it looks like in both sims. It's not that complicated. I obviously can't compare any other locations yet, but look past the scenery and look at the abilities of the graphics engine itself. Shadowing, lighting, detail, etc. Basically, I'm trying to show the advances in the engine, not so much the scenery textures. I mean, seriously. After all the hard work I put into lining up those shots, this is what I get back?  

And to be honest, that Switzerland scenery still loos bad. If the textures had the quality of Orbx or Flight's hawaii ground textures, then it would look pretty nice. Mesh is not the only thing that makes scenery look good.

CaptainG37, on Mar 21 2011, 11:55 PM, said:

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.

It's unlikely that Microsoft hired a third party developer to make the scenery, IMO. It seems much more likely that people on the Flight team made it. Why would MS spend any extra money just to give us some extremely detailed scenery for one part of the world?

Edited by BrandonF, 22 March 2011 - 05:30 PM.

[CaptainG37]

I heard somewhere that OrbX were hired to do some airports for Flight.  I could be wrong but I heard it from a few other developers.

[BrandonF]

CaptainG37, on Mar 22 2011, 04:19 PM, said:

I heard somewhere that OrbX were hired to do some airports for Flight.  I could be wrong but I heard it from a few other developers.

I wouldn't listen to that unless Microsoft or Orbx specifically said it, so I'd guess that it's a rumor.

[Buziel-411_RED]

BrandonF, on Mar 22 2011, 07:04 PM, said:

I wouldn't listen to that unless Microsoft or Orbx specifically said it, so I'd guess that it's a rumor.

George from Flytampa stated they had signed a NDA with Microsoft regarding Flight, stating that Orbx "weren't the only ones to sign."

(Roughly halfway down the page.)

[BrandonF]

Yay!

[Romario_]

-Dexter, on Mar 21 2011, 08:57 PM, said:

Fixed.
FSX ground textures especially.

Trust me, turn the LOD Radius to 8.0000000 and then the Texture_MaxLoad to = 4096 and FSX aint that bad. *Kinda Biased because I have GEX installed but it isn't that bad as FS9's ground textures!  

[Spam]

I would love the next episode to move away from this island... After all the shots its about time to see something new, im impressed with the way they have implimented better shaders into the engine, it seems as though it draws shadows much better onto scenery and aircraft now, but i do hope they optimize it rather than just chuck it in for even more eye candy.

[bonchie]

There were what? 50 or so "detailed" airports in FSX Deluxe?

You can bet they ad a few dozen more as they have with every version. So if there are 60-70 airports designed to that quality in Flight, can we really complain about that?

It's also not that big of a stretch to say that generic airports will indeed be vastly improved. Even at the detailed airports in FSX you had generic buildings and the same generic runway textures.

A simple upgrade of the models of the different building classes and making use of those runway textures would be a huge step forward and that seems pretty reasonable. Why create those textures in the default game and not use them? Why design uglier FSX style runway textures when you've got much more advanced ones already in the game ready to be assigned as part of the landclass.

Further though, I'm looking past just the airport scenery and looking at other aspects of the city around it. They seemed to of fixed the usually awkward way airports run into the surrounding city texture wise (even using 3rd party addons). The atmospheric effects are also an improvement.

The planes themselves are also a big step forward for default aircraft.

Edited by bonchie, 26 March 2011 - 08:05 PM.

[Buziel-411_RED]

BrandonF, on Mar 22 2011, 08:44 PM, said:

Yay!

Did you read my post? Flytampa and Orbx. I think any possible involvement from them would be considered a good thing.

[BrandonF]

Buziel-411_RED, on Mar 26 2011, 06:17 PM, said:

Did you read my post? Flytampa and Orbx. I think any possible involvement from them would be considered a good thing.

I meant yay in a good way...as in, I was happy to read that bit of info.  

[ChaoticBeauty]

Buziel-411_RED, on Mar 27 2011, 04:17 AM, said:

Did you read my post? Flytampa and Orbx. I think any possible involvement from them would be considered a good thing.

That's a great thing and a very smart move!