36 replies to this topic

[_BD6_]

To those saying it looks like FSX, what's wrong with FSX? Nothing appearance wise, they've improved on some stuff, which is great.. what amazes me the most are the airports.. I love how the runways and the airport in general blends in, no bright as runway markings from more than 1nm out like in FSX.

It wouldn't surprise me (if all airports in FSX are as great looking as the ones in the shots) if FSDT, FlyTampa, etc lose out on a bit of profit because the default airports do look close to realistic (or realistic enough for those casual pilots).

[SwitchFX]

It seems as if they've massively improved distance view texture loading.

[Buziel-411_RED]

SwitchFX, on May 29 2011, 10:02 PM, said:

It seems as if they've massively improved distance view texture loading.

Are you talking about the "blurries?" The distant ground textures look pretty awful to me...

Edited by Buziel-411_RED, 29 May 2011 - 10:18 PM.

[Romario_]

I'm sure Flight is gonna need some tweaking (like the blurries). But let's hope they aren't running it on minimal settings just to confuse us about performance  

[Buziel-411_RED]

Romario_, on May 29 2011, 10:25 PM, said:

But let's hope they aren't running it on minimal settings just to confuse us about performance  

On that note, the ground textures in FSX's preview shots look crisper than Flight's.

[SwitchFX]

Buziel-411_RED, on May 29 2011, 08:12 PM, said:

Are you talking about the "blurries?" The distant ground textures look pretty awful to me...

I noticed quality in the shot with the airport to the north-east of the biplane.

Buziel-411_RED, on May 29 2011, 08:43 PM, said:

On that note, the ground textures in FSX's preview shots look crisper than Flight's.

If I recall correctly, it was revealed that those preview shots were high quality renders scaled down. We had an FSX developer or one of the heads from the project who was active on our board. He was essentially a Microsoft liason.

[ChaoticBeauty]

I don't care if Flight looks the same with FSX, I just want it to be modern, stable and with good optimisation.

[yimmy149]

While the detail isn't great, the scenery integrates much better with itself; the autogen flora colors actually look right against the ground textures.  Airports and cities blend in better - from a few thousand feet I think things will look much more realistic than vanilla FSX.

I think cloud shadows would be something that could be added easily near the end of the development cycle, but I really hope it's on the list!

-james

[BrandonF]

I think the blurries are probably due to lower settings. This way, if they have to remove a feature, you won't be disappointed and get something worse than what you saw in the shots. But if they don't change anything, you'll get more than what you expected. (crisp textures) They also probably want to make it look like it's in development, so that people actually think that it will get better.

[Romario_]

BrandonF, on Jun 1 2011, 01:28 PM, said:

I think the blurries are probably due to lower settings. This way, if they have to remove a feature, you won't be disappointed and get something worse than what you saw in the shots. But if they don't change anything, you'll get more than what you expected. (crisp textures) They also probably want to make it look like it's in development, so that people actually think that it will get better.

How's about them shots?    I really can't wait to see the comparisons!

[Buziel-411_RED]

Wow... I had a dream Microsoft posted pictures showing cloud shadows. Is that weird?

BrandonF, on Jun 1 2011, 01:28 PM, said:

I think the blurries are probably due to lower settings. This way, if they have to remove a feature, you won't be disappointed and get something worse than what you saw in the shots. But if they don't change anything, you'll get more than what you expected. (crisp textures) They also probably want to make it look like it's in development, so that people actually think that it will get better.

I second Romario. Let's see some comparison shots.

[BrandonF]

Enjoy...if possible.  

http://www.flightsim...howtopic=195640

[SwitchFX]

BrandonF, on Jun 1 2011, 11:28 AM, said:

I think the blurries are probably due to lower settings. This way, if they have to remove a feature, you won't be disappointed and get something worse than what you saw in the shots. But if they don't change anything, you'll get more than what you expected. (crisp textures) They also probably want to make it look like it's in development, so that people actually think that it will get better.

That's because it is.

[BrandonF]

SwitchFX, on Jun 1 2011, 06:18 PM, said:

That's because it is.

I know, but unfortunately there are people out there who don't think it's still in full swing development, but more of a completed stage.  

[SwitchFX]

BrandonF, on Jun 1 2011, 06:30 PM, said:

I know, but unfortunately there are people out there who don't think it's still in full swing development, but more of a completed stage.  

Ah, yes. I've seen posts like that on some forums. I don't blame those people -- look at Microsoft over the years dicking around with development and delivering an "okay" product, and the inferior crap known as FSX. FSX in itself is brilliant, the execution of code is not.

Edited by SwitchFX, 01 June 2011 - 08:32 PM.

[ThrottleUp]

FSX now looks SO dated and old.

We seriously need this MS Flight BAD!! Great shots

[SwitchFX]

Wrong topic.

Edited by SwitchFX, 23 July 2011 - 04:52 AM.