150 replies to this topic

[alainneedle1]

@ dexter, so the only two thing you've read nothing about are the pay as you go and stuff from the old engine been used in Flight? I guess I'm doing OK with everything else so far right because at the time I made my "prediction" you did not read any of them from MS also?

MS did say that they were using some stuff from the FSX engine (MS interview in PC pilot) in Flight, now if you ask me it's the other way around, they are using new stuff  to fix the FSX engine but MS will not say that of course.

You remember the oversized houses and trees + the sinking back wheel.....same small problems all from a brand new engine out of the box....seriously, what are the chances of that happening??

Edited by alainneedle1, 04 August 2011 - 05:14 PM.

[-Dexter]

^ Please don't reference those pre-rendered videos.

See, there's contradicting information at the moment.

Quote

We're building from the ground up focusing on the “purist" simmer as well as a larger range of people with varied interests in aviation. We will take advantage of the expertise and existing elements of the existing FS code base and architecture where it fits. After 30 years of evolving the same code base, it's time for a fresh look.

http://www.cleared-t...crosoft-flight/

Sounds like a new engine.

And I have not read anything about a pay-as-you-go type of deal.

Edited by -Dexter, 04 August 2011 - 06:15 PM.

[Buziel-411_RED]

-Dexter, on Aug 4 2011, 09:34 AM, said:

Citation for the bold? I've read more than one interview about Flight which says it's a whole new engine. And I have read nothing about a PAYG system.

I'm pretty sure he just made that one up.

[SwitchFX]

He's a troll.

[alainneedle1]

-Dexter, on Aug 4 2011, 07:14 PM, said:

^ Please don't reference those pre-rendered videos.

See, there's contradicting information at the moment.
http://www.cleared-t...crosoft-flight/

Sounds like a new engine.

And I have not read anything about a pay-as-you-go type of deal.

Please don't reference those pre-rendered videos.   MS showed us this vid. pre-rendered or not, not me, so what are we suppose to base our observation on, something they have not released yet?

And I have not read anything about a pay-as-you-go type of deal. OK so if Hawaii is just an enhanced version of Flight forpublicity purpose how does Flight default look like and if Flight look like Hawaii all over who need add-ons.

Edited by alainneedle1, 04 August 2011 - 07:16 PM.

[BrandonF]

alainneedle1, on Aug 4 2011, 03:12 PM, said:

You remember the oversized houses and trees + the sinking back wheel.....same small problems all from a brand new engine out of the box....seriously, what are the chances of that happening??

Why are you referencing the oldest in game video? If you look at the latest video, things look perfectly fine. That tail wheel problem will happen even in a new engine if they still use a contact point-style system for wheel contacts. They simply haven't fixed the compression/coordinates on the tail wheel. I mean, come on...stop worrying about something silly like that. If a developer posted screenshots of their add-on and the tail wheel was in the ground, would you say anything? No. Same thing applies here. Seriously, having to explain this again is annoying.

Buziel-411_RED, on Aug 4 2011, 04:40 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure he just made that one up.

It's not made up. He took it from PC Pilot magazine.

[-Dexter]

SwitchFX, on Aug 4 2011, 07:50 PM, said:

He's a troll.

I am increasingly inclined to believe this to be true.

Edited by -Dexter, 04 August 2011 - 10:05 PM.

[alainneedle1]

BrandonF, on Aug 4 2011, 09:34 PM, said:

Why are you referencing the oldest in game video? If you look at the latest video, things look perfectly fine. That tail wheel problem will happen even in a new engine if they still use a contact point-style system for wheel contacts. They simply haven't fixed the compression/coordinates on the tail wheel. I mean, come on...stop worrying about something silly like that. If a developer posted screenshots of their add-on and the tail wheel was in the ground, would you say anything? No. Same thing applies here. Seriously, having to explain this again is annoying.
It's not made up. He took it from PC Pilot magazine.

As you know my point is not about "Can the oversized houses and trees be fixed including the contact point for the wheel" ...of course it can be fixed, my point was to the fact that they did NOT start building a new engine from scratch to incorporate some of what was working best from FSX, it's the other way around as you can see in their vid. they started with FSX and they are including new stuff in it to fix it.

Did I myself wanted a brand spanking new out of the box engine for Flight, you "betcha" but this is not what we are seeing, sorry,  adding new airplane + new texture + some new coding does not make this a new engine.

The evidence are there, up to you to see them or to ignore them, there is other peoples who are seeing them to,  http://www.cleared-t...crosoft-flight/

[-Dexter]

^ Look man, everything we know about Flight right now is very sensitive. None of it may be true at all. You are trying to make out these speculations as facts. I'm as gullible as the next guy, but anybody can pose as "as inside source"; I'll take my information from the horse's mouth.

alainneedle1, on Aug 5 2011, 08:34 AM, said:

Did I myself wanted a brand spanking new out of the box engine for Flight, you "betcha" but this is not what we are seeing, sorry,  adding new airplane + new texture + some new coding does not make this a new engine.

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

Edited by -Dexter, 05 August 2011 - 08:51 AM.

[alainneedle1]

-Dexter, on Aug 5 2011, 09:49 AM, said:

^ Look man, everything we know about Flight right now is very sensitive. None of it may be true at all. You are trying to make out these speculations as facts. I'm as gullible as the next guy, but anybody can pose as "as inside source"; I'll take my information from the horse's mouth.

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

Never said I was an inside source, make your own deduction about what I said 8 month ago compare to the info MS released so far, I just remember that peoples were saying I was crazy and I was making stuff up, now they "kinda" warming up to the idea of Flight not been what they were expecting....human nature I guess.

Holy run-on sentence, Batman! So you know English is not my native language lets try French....

Game for window market place... look at their add-ons for Dirt 3 not compatible with Dirt 2 and Dirt 2 add-ons not compatible with Dirt 3, they also have one free add-on...   http://marketplace.x.../...&noSplash=1  look at this  ...Online Interactions

http://marketplace.x...15-d802434d0819

Would you like to add this nice battleship to your Flight for $1.99......pure speculation...



FSX is a VERY good engine, they just need to fix what's wrong with it and you'll be amazed to see what you can do with it (DX10), here is a 2 small vid I made when testing FSX in DX10 with the right driver and Inspector settings, Orbx scenery all sliders maxed out (car traffic at 30% and water at 2x high) I also added some strong wind (I felt the wind at landing) to push FSX to it's max., I also pushed the plane as far as I could, keep an eye on the FPS counter, no shimmerings at all, is it perfect...no... but you can see what you can do in DX10, so by MS fix all the bugs in FSX engine you won't need a new one.





Here is another one at night from the same airport, I moved the outside view camera a lot to show that I had no flickering light, strong wind at landing again, car traffics at 50% for immersion effct.



EDIT: I forgot to add that I have no tweak what so ever in the fsx.CFG folder.

Edited by alainneedle1, 05 August 2011 - 12:20 PM.

[-Dexter]

^ Wasn't it confirmed that the battleship image was a hoax?

Face it, friend, the FSX engine was downright bloated. SP2 brought some fixes, but for the most part it was bloated from launch and is still bloated today. At launch, nobody could run FSX at max with good framerate. Much less with addons.

A new engine is long overdue. I'm glad to see Microsoft is taking strides to accommodate people who don't spend a chunk of their life savings on a ridiculous amount of computer hardware.

Edited by -Dexter, 05 August 2011 - 09:24 PM.

[alainneedle1]

-Dexter, on Aug 5 2011, 10:21 PM, said:

^ Wasn't it confirmed that the battleship image was a hoax?

   a hoax....link please.

I've never said that FSX engine was not bloaded, what I said is that FSX engine is a VERY good one with bugs in it and that's what they are fixing right now, sorry but adding new stuff in it does not make it brand new from the ground up, I put brand new tire on my car last week, the car feel better but it's the same old car.

You really think that Flight will run on mid range PC with complex add-ons... seriously? I play Crysis 2 (DX11) and the game is based on a today's engine, the graphics are fantastic but the game is pushing my rig to the max, look at my spec.

If a brand new engine like Crysis can take my rig for a spin trust me when I say that you'll need a little more than a mid range rig to run Flight with complex add-ons, about SLI for starter if they want to offload the CPU......

Motherboard: Gigabyte UD-9
CPU: I7 980x @ 4677.4MHz as of 10/21/2010
RAM: Suoer Talent 2004MHz
Timing @ 7-7-6-20 1T
CPU COOLER: Noctua NH-D14
PSU: ABS Targan 1300W
SSD OS: Crucial SSD Sata III 128GB
SSD game: OCZ Z-Drive R2 P84 PCI Express 256GB for FSX
HARD DRIVE: 1 x 300GB Velociraptor +
3 x 150GB all at 10,000rpm
VIDEO CARD:Zotac GTX 480 AMP! 840/1680/2052, BFG GTX 285 for PhysX.

[-Dexter]

alainneedle1, on Aug 5 2011, 11:43 PM, said:

I've never said that FSX engine was not bloaded, what I said is that FSX engine is a VERY good one with bugs in it and that's what they are fixing right now, sorry but adding new stuff in it does not make it brand new from the ground up, I put brand new tire on my car last week, the car feel better but it's the same old car.

The FSX engine is good? It's the same engine that ran FS9. And FS8. FSX was the FS9 engine with some unnecessary bloat added: bloom, DX10 "preview", and while some of the features are nice, such as the advanced animations, it's still just a bloated version of FS9.

No user should be required to dig through system files and modify a CFG to make software better utilize their modern quad-core processor, as is the case with FSX's engine which was initially built when there were no quad-core processors in home computers.

[_NW_]

alainneedle1, on Aug 5 2011, 11:15 AM, said:

FSX is a VERY good engine, they just need to fix what's wrong with it

If it was "VERY good" then it wouldn't need fixing because nothing would be wrong with it now would it?  

alainneedle1, on Aug 5 2011, 11:15 AM, said:

EDIT: I forgot to add that I have no tweak what so ever in the fsx.CFG folder.

You have a fsx.cfg folder?  Most of just have a file.  Guess we missed out on that superultradeluxe FSX version that came with an fsx.cfg folder.

[ChaoticBeauty]

The FSX engine is very good? Seriously, it's the same engine from FS95 with added features and hardly takes any advantage of newer hardware.

It might look good, but as an engine it's terrible. It's bloated as . If Flight doesn't use a new engine, then I hope that the old engine gets at least 60% of the code rewritten.

[alainneedle1]

Hey! I'm with you here as far as FSX been buged to death, I'm saying that without the bugs this engine is a very good one.

Will it take 40, 50 or 70% of the code be rewritten, I don't know but if they can manage to offload the CPU to the GPU (SLI) that will be a good start, now look at this, in the Nvidia Inspector you can see Flight under driver 1.9.5.5, you can't find Flight in earlier drivers, so do you think that the dev. at Nvidia inserted Flight in this driver just because they had nothing better to do one afternoon or is it because MS asked them to do this for testing??

SLI compatibility bits (DX10)....seriously why not DX9 or DX11, wich one is working the best as far as FPS goes in FSX as it is now DX9 or DX10....you got it ...DX10 as I showed you in my testing, they just need to fix the shimmerings, flickerings runways and other stuff in DX10.



Now read this about FSX SLI.

http://blogs.msdn.co...multi-core.aspx

Here, they were working on DX10 sill before MS closed Aces, what's wrong with restarting where they left it at?

http://blogs.msdn.co...ess-report.aspx

Is MS capable of building a brand new engine out of the box for Flight....yes...in two years...not a chance, it will take at least four years to come up with something 100% brand new, that is why they are reusing FSX.

I'm just looking at all the clues we have and at what MS said in their interview, showed pictures and vid. and if I try to put all the pieces of the puzzle together I come up with a fixed FSX engine in DX10.

Crysis 2 (today's game) was DX9 about one month ago, they just came up with a patch for DX11, did you see something remotly looking like this in Flight?



That's what I call a new engine using DX11, I just hope MS will have DX11 at one point for Flight.

[-Dexter]

Nobody cares about your FSX setup. The engine is bloated. A truly well-written engine would not require a CFG file to take advantage of hardware. It wouldn't require Nhancer for anti-aliasing. It wouldn't require ~$500 in new hardware to run with decent visuals at a decent framerate.

The FSX engine has very few bugs. It is surprisingly lacking on the buggy end; it's just poorly written. It has never been updated to hardware standards of the past three to four years.

[alainneedle1]

-Dexter, on Aug 6 2011, 05:21 PM, said:

The FSX engine has very few bugs. It is surprisingly lacking on the buggy end; it's just poorly written. It has never been updated to hardware standards of the past three to four years.

Exactly what I am saying, and that's what MS is doing rewritting FSX engine and selling it as a new one. I rest my case.

Talk to you at release, here for a good laugh....  

[SwitchFX]

Most game engines recycle code from their previous version. What is your point?

[Mohammad]

I read PC Pilot's magazine a few months ago and it clearly stated, from Microsoft's own words, that the next game will be built entirely on a new engine.

FSX was an improved engine of FS2004, which was also an improved version of FS2002, etc etc etc. Flight Simulator franchise was running on the same engine since probably FS98. The transition between FS98 -> 2000, 2002, 2004 and finally "X" was simply an tweaked engine, with extra things added to it.
It reached its peak in FS2004, which is probably the best Flight Sim in the history of the franchise. But soon Microsoft learned that FSX was the turning point, and they desperately needed a newer engine.

Since 1983, the Microsoft Flight Simulator franchise was running. Its final product was in 2006, with the arrival of the tenth installment known as FSX.

Since then, Microsoft's FS franchise came to an end. It ceased to exist. 1983-2006, Rest in Peace.

Now since ACES shut down in 2009 and a new announcement was made in 2011, Microsoft initiated a new franchise. This one is called "MS Flight".
It's the spiritual successor to MS Flight Simulator, but not the actual successor in legal terms, although MS still own the copyright to the old franchise name.

MS came out this year publicly intending two promises:
1. That MS Flight is a wholly new experience for aviation enthusiasts.
2. That the engine will be built on the ground up after MS admitted/concluded that the old franchise's engine, though good in 2004 standards, was past its peak.

Ergo, there are two things to expect and Microsoft developers CLEARLY STATED IT in the previous PC Pilot edition:

1. MS Flight should run properly OUT OF THE BOX, without the need of tweaking the crap out of it like in FSX. FSX is an exception. No FS game ever ran like crap outta the box, except FSX, and the whole intention of Microsoft this time round is that this does not happen again.

2. That the problems we had with the previous engines will be virtually non existent in the upcoming title.

So if anyone denies this is the goal of MS Flight then he is essentially denying what MS are promising themselves. This is the first time since my childhood of buying FS that Microsoft are coming out and saying stuff like that. It means their intentions are good. Lets give em a chance before ruling em out.