99 replies to this topic

[CaptainG37]

Or maybe this one...



It doesn't take a lot of processing power at all.  Not when you know how to do it.

[BrandonF]

So you've used X-Plane 10?

[CaptainG37]

BrandonF, on Sep 14 2011, 02:33 PM, said:

So you've used X-Plane 10?

Possibly.
Let's not get defensive.  The fact is, Flight, so far, does not have ground lighting from street lights or car headlights.  X Plane 10 does.  
Let's not argue about semantics and instead, look at what is presented in front of us.
I think we can safely say that these screenshots would not have been released if the night lighting slowed the sim down excessively.

Edited by CaptainG37, 14 September 2011 - 12:29 AM.

[BrandonF]

My point being this: X-Plane has all those graphical features, but at what cost to performance?

[CaptainG37]

BrandonF, on Sep 14 2011, 03:29 PM, said:

My point being this: X-Plane has all those graphical features, but at what cost to performance?

I think the latest feedback was there was an average of either a 3-5 fps loss or 3-5 percent performance loss across the board on the developers computers.  I can't remember what it was.  Either way, it's hardly anything to destroy performance.

Edited by CaptainG37, 14 September 2011 - 12:42 AM.

[Spam]

Xp10 at the moment has the superior night lighting system, bar none. Flight isnt even touching it there. As for the clouds, not sure about anyone else but they still look like quite low res textures compared with what REX has to offer, i would have thought they would bump the texture size a little I do however like the under belly illumination and shadows on buildings, the fog is also a big + , i hated the sharp edge of the old versions, this looks really good..

[SwitchFX]

Thank you to whoever uploaded screen caps. What at MS thought they should use Silverlight for this site?

Edited by SwitchFX, 14 September 2011 - 02:34 AM.

[Daube]

BrandonF, on Sep 13 2011, 05:51 PM, said:

What screenshots are you looking at?   I know you just glanced, because I saw several new things in these shots.

Yes, you're always saying the same stuff Brandon.
Why don't you write a precise list of obvious differences that can be seen in those screenshots ? And please, don't talk about default content like in the previous discussions, try to talk about features/technical stuff.

EDIT: I had not seen the news part. Indeed the fog is definietely (I should say FINALLY) looksing like a real fog. That's a cool NEW feature compared to FSX. Same goes for clouds/mountains limits.

BrandonF, on Sep 13 2011, 06:35 PM, said:

Even if it does look a little like FSX with a new skin (which it doesn't) at least it looks good for being default. Default has always been hideously ugly. Doesn't look like that is the case this time, especially with the clouds.

It is not really default and you know it. The rest of the world will not be as detailled as Hawaii, just like the rest of the world was not as detailled as St.Marteen was in FSX.

Edited by Daube, 14 September 2011 - 04:08 AM.

[Cortez]

Addons will be released. You'll forget about default textures, idk why people complain about how it looks. It's an improvement to fsx, and fsx looks great with Addons that the majority of you have. And I'm sure it will be a lot better on performance, so for those of you suffering from bad fps can have a better experience. I'm looking forward to flight, but I think I'll be in Afghanistan when it's released (if the rumors are true)

[ChaoticBeauty]

Remember Flight is still not finished. I see they keep adding more and more cool features with each webisode and screenshot release.

Also in screenshots 4 and 5 anti-aliasing is not cranked, which means the settings might be lower than max too. Don't be so pessimistic.

[CaptainG37]

Kaotika, on Sep 14 2011, 09:00 PM, said:

Remember Flight is still not finished. I see they keep adding more and more cool features with each webisode and screenshot release.

Also in screenshots 4 and 5 anti-aliasing is not cranked, which means the settings might be lower than max too. Don't be so pessimistic.

Not meaning to be a pessimist, but if Microsoft want to showcase some of their latest screenshots, and they DON'T crank up the anti-aliasing and ALL of their settings to Ultra MAX (especially after seeing a video or 2 that look like rendered animations) then the marketing/promo guy needs to be fired.

[-Dexter]

@ Switch:  I hate Microsoft for doing that. It makes their site unviewable from anything other than a Win/Mac computer. It's not like they're using an advanced interface either, just a simple little gallery and some text.

CaptainG37, on Sep 13 2011, 11:39 PM, said:

Not really...

But then again, it ain't Flight
[image]

That "lighting" is pre-baked. Meaning it's a static part of the ground texture. (At least this is what I believe it to be)

True dynamic lighting would allow the lights to move anywhere in the environment and cast unique shadows every time.

Edited by -Dexter, 14 September 2011 - 07:37 AM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

CaptainG37, on Sep 14 2011, 02:48 PM, said:

Not meaning to be a pessimist, but if Microsoft want to showcase some of their latest screenshots, and they DON'T crank up the anti-aliasing and ALL of their settings to Ultra MAX (especially after seeing a video or 2 that look like rendered animations) then the marketing/promo guy needs to be fired.

I think they just want to keep the good stuff for release and not increase our hype to monstrous heights, like FSX did.

[CaptainG37]

-Dexter, on Sep 14 2011, 10:34 PM, said:

@ Switch:  I hate Microsoft for doing that. It makes their site unviewable from anything other than a Win/Mac computer. It's not like they're using an advanced interface either, just a simple little gallery and some text.
That "lighting" is pre-baked. Meaning it's a static part of the ground texture. (At least this is what I believe it to be)

True dynamic lighting would allow the lights to move anywhere in the environment and cast unique shadows every time.

Have to correct you.  That is true HDR dynamic lighting that interacts with any and all objects.  This is fact.  Not assumption.  I have seen preview videos of it and it is absolutely stunning.  The cars that move on the roads (on the right side of the road depending on the country) have headlights and tail lights that follow the movement.
X Plane 9 uses pre baked lit textures.  
The lighting is one of the big features of XP10.

[ChaoticBeauty]

CaptainG37, on Sep 14 2011, 03:48 PM, said:

Have to correct you.  That is true HDR dynamic lighting that interacts with any and all objects.  This is fact.  Not assumption.  I have seen preview videos of it and it is absolutely stunning.  The cars that move on the roads (on the right side of the road depending on the country) have headlights and tail lights that follow the movement.
X Plane 9 uses pre baked lit textures.  
The lighting is one of the big features of XP10.

To be honest, it looks like pre-baked lighting. It's just a light source lighting up objects up close.

EDIT: Also this thread is for posting Microsoft Flight pictures, not X-Plane 10 pictures.

Edited by Kaotika, 14 September 2011 - 07:58 AM.

[Daube]

Kaotika, on Sep 14 2011, 07:56 AM, said:

To be honest, it looks like pre-baked lighting. It's just a light source lighting up objects up close.

It "looks like" pre-baked lighting, but its not, as we could clearly see in the various airport/parking shots in which only part of the plane was affected by the nearby spot light. Lights and shadows in XP10 will definitely be impressive and realistic. For Flight however, we know nothing about lights, we only know about the shadows, which will look good as well.


EDIT: look at the closest cars in the highway screenshot. One is in the middle of the "pre-baked" area, and the car has some light cast on it. The other cars are in the dark, and we cannot distinguish their bodies, only their front lights. So there IS some dynamic lightning here, not some pre-baked texture

Kaotika, on Sep 14 2011, 07:56 AM, said:

EDIT: Also this thread is for posting Microsoft Flight pictures, not X-Plane 10 pictures.

This thread is to discuss and compare, like many other threads.

Edited by Daube, 14 September 2011 - 08:04 AM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Daube, on Sep 14 2011, 04:03 PM, said:

It "looks like" pre-baked lighting, but its not, as we could clearly see in the various airport/parking shots in which only part of the plane was affected by the nearby spot light. Lights and shadows in XP10 will definitely by impressive and realistic. For Flight however, we know nothing about lights, we only know about the shadows, which will look good as well.
EDIT: look at the closest cars in the highway screenshots. One is in the middle of the "pre-baked" area, and the car has some light on it. The other cars are in the dark, and we cannot distinguish their bodies, only their front lights. So there IS some dynamic lightning here, not some pre-baked texture
This thread is to discuss and compare, like many other threads.

Also it looks like two cars are clipping together (looks like the car has four lights).

[Daube]

It could be a truck, like the vehicule on the left (very long). But it could be a clipping as well, yes.

[CaptainG37]

It could also be a test vehicle to see how the lighting "extends" when the lights are doubled.  Notice the 4 lights cast a longer light beam on the road when compared to the car next to it.
Kaotika, it's obvious you LOVE FSX and Flight, but will you ever admit that X Plane has Flight beat in some categories (as far you're concerned and based on what you have seen.)

[ChaoticBeauty]

CaptainG37, on Sep 14 2011, 04:14 PM, said:

Kaotika, it's obvious you LOVE FSX and Flight, but will you ever admit that X Plane has Flight beat in some categories (as far you're concerned and based on what you have seen.)

Yes, I have already admitted that, and I'm actually happy to see competition going on, but you are the problem. You just keep posting about the good things X-Plane 10 has and talking negatively about Flight. I've never compared those two, just posting my opinion on them.