Personally, I can hardly wait until the 29th so I can start posting some screenshots of the incredibly detailed scenery around even the most remote and isolated airfields in Flight.
Having actually examined the textures used in Flight, I can confirm that the full panoply of FSX's Materials are present and accounted for, including diffuse, specular, bump and global reflection maps.
0
Something good to expect.
Started by
American Eagle
, Feb 08 2012 03:13 AM
33 replies to this topic
#22
jcovelli
-
- Members
-
- 596 posts
Private Pilot - IFR
- Location:WI
Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:01 PM
n4gix, on Feb 10 2012, 04:42 PM, said:
Personally, I can hardly wait until the 29th so I can start posting some screenshots of the incredibly detailed scenery around even the most remote and isolated airfields in Flight.
Having actually examined the textures used in Flight, I can confirm that the full panoply of FSX's Materials are present and accounted for, including diffuse, specular, bump and global reflection maps.
Having actually examined the textures used in Flight, I can confirm that the full panoply of FSX's Materials are present and accounted for, including diffuse, specular, bump and global reflection maps.
well that's ok... i'll have screen shots a bit later today of the 'wonderful' textures........ i'll even throw in some of those remote airfields...
#23
Daube
-
- Members
-
- 884 posts
Private Pilot - IFR
Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:12 PM
jcovelli, on Feb 10 2012, 01:14 PM, said:
if there's bump mapping in fsx or flight... i haven't seen any. and i do know what it is... i spend my days making bump and diffusion maps.... and textures
#24
jcovelli
-
- Members
-
- 596 posts
Private Pilot - IFR
- Location:WI
Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:45 PM
i see plenty...
http://s853.photobuc.../ab96/jcovelli/
all the same textures from fsx, plus a bunch of defects and triangles showing..
they can't even get the grass texture right? since when are grass blades 2ft long?
and you would think since microsoft is pushing hawaii and you have to pay $20 for it... wouldn't they at least make custom textures? or even photoreal textures...
and this is using a 120gb ssd
http://s853.photobuc.../ab96/jcovelli/
all the same textures from fsx, plus a bunch of defects and triangles showing..
they can't even get the grass texture right? since when are grass blades 2ft long?
and you would think since microsoft is pushing hawaii and you have to pay $20 for it... wouldn't they at least make custom textures? or even photoreal textures...
and this is using a 120gb ssd
Edited by jcovelli, 11 February 2012 - 06:49 PM.
#25
Daube
-
- Members
-
- 884 posts
Private Pilot - IFR
Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:58 AM
I am totally recognizing the Flight's problems.
Jut like you, I think their actual selling policy just plainly sucks.
I was just referring to the sim technical features, for which I try to keep an objective point of view, avoiding propanganda-style affirmations.
The fact is that the rendering engine of Flight is superior to the FSX one.
When it comes to the clouds, volumetric clouds are just the same exact system as the "bad" FSX clouds, meaning that its still some sort of big group of flying 2D objects, on which a cumulus texture is pasted. The difference in the volumetric coulds is that the amount of 2D objects, their density, is much higher, leading to a more solid "density" impression. Now, it's bad that they still use the ugly default FSX cumulus texture to paste on. That's right. However, the system itself, the mecanisms behind, are much better than the FSX cloud system, and we can all see that when looking at the mountain shots, where the mountains are not "cut" by those big 2D clouds anymore, for example.
Also, the shadowing system is much better than the FSX one. Flight finally gets a shadow+lighting system that is comparable to what we are seeing in XPlane10 screenshots. The shadow of the plane is now visible on a non-flat ground surface, the various objects cast real shadows, and the objects which are on the shadowed part of a terrain are not illuminated by the sun anymore, leading once again to a much more credible global rendering.
Night ligthing, on your screens, seem to be the same as FSX, and I agree that's not such a good thing at all. Also, these 'triangles' are blurry textures are obviously linked to bad usage of hardware power from the sim, that's a fact. But it's still a beta, we should wait the final product before criticing the performance.
My global impression about Flight is quite negative, to be honnest. I see some very good potential in it though, but the lack of SDK and the selling policy are show-stoppers which will keep me away from it for the moment. However, I won't shout stuff like "it sucks" or "it's a bad sim", because in reality I have no concrete idea about what this sim is able to do or not. It would be like judging FSX from the default scenery and the default Cessna 172. Instead, the technical features of the FSX engine allowed it to receive the best addons ever made for any sim on any platform, like OrbX sceneries (no equivalent on any sim), or Accusim planes (no equivalent on any sim), or the VRS Hornet (equivalent to the best military sim, which is quite an achievement), and all of this is still improving today (TacPac is coming!). What if, somehow (with a lot of black magic), Flight takes a similar road ? Sure, the absence of SDK won't help that happen, but who knows ? That's why I don't want to make any final comment, and I keep a "wait I see" behavior. For now.
Jut like you, I think their actual selling policy just plainly sucks.
I was just referring to the sim technical features, for which I try to keep an objective point of view, avoiding propanganda-style affirmations.
The fact is that the rendering engine of Flight is superior to the FSX one.
When it comes to the clouds, volumetric clouds are just the same exact system as the "bad" FSX clouds, meaning that its still some sort of big group of flying 2D objects, on which a cumulus texture is pasted. The difference in the volumetric coulds is that the amount of 2D objects, their density, is much higher, leading to a more solid "density" impression. Now, it's bad that they still use the ugly default FSX cumulus texture to paste on. That's right. However, the system itself, the mecanisms behind, are much better than the FSX cloud system, and we can all see that when looking at the mountain shots, where the mountains are not "cut" by those big 2D clouds anymore, for example.
Also, the shadowing system is much better than the FSX one. Flight finally gets a shadow+lighting system that is comparable to what we are seeing in XPlane10 screenshots. The shadow of the plane is now visible on a non-flat ground surface, the various objects cast real shadows, and the objects which are on the shadowed part of a terrain are not illuminated by the sun anymore, leading once again to a much more credible global rendering.
Night ligthing, on your screens, seem to be the same as FSX, and I agree that's not such a good thing at all. Also, these 'triangles' are blurry textures are obviously linked to bad usage of hardware power from the sim, that's a fact. But it's still a beta, we should wait the final product before criticing the performance.
My global impression about Flight is quite negative, to be honnest. I see some very good potential in it though, but the lack of SDK and the selling policy are show-stoppers which will keep me away from it for the moment. However, I won't shout stuff like "it sucks" or "it's a bad sim", because in reality I have no concrete idea about what this sim is able to do or not. It would be like judging FSX from the default scenery and the default Cessna 172. Instead, the technical features of the FSX engine allowed it to receive the best addons ever made for any sim on any platform, like OrbX sceneries (no equivalent on any sim), or Accusim planes (no equivalent on any sim), or the VRS Hornet (equivalent to the best military sim, which is quite an achievement), and all of this is still improving today (TacPac is coming!). What if, somehow (with a lot of black magic), Flight takes a similar road ? Sure, the absence of SDK won't help that happen, but who knows ? That's why I don't want to make any final comment, and I keep a "wait I see" behavior. For now.
Edited by Daube, 12 February 2012 - 06:02 AM.
#26
Spam
-
- Members
-
- 1,298 posts
Commercial Pilot
- Location:EGFF
Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:03 AM
Yea they do look like the same textures, it seems becase of the lack of graphical settings the texture resolution slider we are familliar with isnt available the textures are suffering. I do agree the clouds look better, and the shadowing has had an overhaul.
#27
n4gix
-
- Members
-
- 71 posts
Student Pilot
Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:35 PM
Spam, on Feb 12 2012, 07:03 AM, said:
Yea they do look like the same textures, it seems becase of the lack of graphical settings the texture resolution slider we are familliar with isnt available the textures are suffering. I do agree the clouds look better, and the shadowing has had an overhaul.
[Configuration] Custom=0 //Set to 1 to enable setting from Flight.cfg file to override the generic UI settings.
#28
Spam
-
- Members
-
- 1,298 posts
Commercial Pilot
- Location:EGFF
Posted 12 February 2012 - 02:34 PM
more tweaking. nice.
#29
HighFlyin
-
- Members
-
- 2,920 posts
Airline Transport Pilot
- Location:Romper Room
Posted 13 February 2012 - 12:03 AM
Microsoft flight
#30
jcrouse55
-
- Members
-
- 1,755 posts
Commercial Pilot
- Location:Tarpon Springs, Fl
Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:34 PM
AlexKitch, on Feb 10 2012, 01:54 PM, said:
Where is your evidence to support this? The clouds in Flight closely resemble volumetric clouds rather than anything else. FSX's clouds are nothing but cleverly arranged 2D billboards. Textures may be generic, yes, but short of photographing every square meter of Hawaii in HD, I don't understand what you're expecting here. Even Google Earth would wince at that idea.
Another false statement. I'm a programmer in the games industry and I can tell you first hand, having coded for PC, 360 and PS3, that there is *no* burning rush to adopt DirectX 10 or 11. What we desperately *need* is better hardware from the consoles (particularly memory) to stop holding back PC development. Fancier API's are simply a luxury - one that most people's PCs still aren't in a position to fully take advantage of.
Given that FSX had bump mapping, it can be given as read that Flight also has bump mapping.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but please get your facts straight before throwing mud at something you know little about yet. I'm very skeptical about the future of Flight myself - I think Microsoft have shot at the wrong market and I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments about the 3rd party market, but being petulant about it isn't going to answer any of my questions. Wait, and see.
Another false statement. I'm a programmer in the games industry and I can tell you first hand, having coded for PC, 360 and PS3, that there is *no* burning rush to adopt DirectX 10 or 11. What we desperately *need* is better hardware from the consoles (particularly memory) to stop holding back PC development. Fancier API's are simply a luxury - one that most people's PCs still aren't in a position to fully take advantage of.
Given that FSX had bump mapping, it can be given as read that Flight also has bump mapping.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but please get your facts straight before throwing mud at something you know little about yet. I'm very skeptical about the future of Flight myself - I think Microsoft have shot at the wrong market and I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments about the 3rd party market, but being petulant about it isn't going to answer any of my questions. Wait, and see.
This part of your quote is untrue! What are your computer specs? I would have to guess that 75% of the people on this forum have at least DX10 or higher and play most newer games at DX10-11. DX9 is OLD school no a days.
Microsoft flat out blew it with Flight, plain and simple. End of story.
#31
ChaoticBeauty
-
- Members
-
- 574 posts
Private Pilot - IFR
Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:42 AM
jcrouse55, on Feb 15 2012, 06:34 AM, said:
This part of your quote is untrue! What are your computer specs? I would have to guess that 75% of the people on this forum have at least DX10 or higher and play most newer games at DX10-11. DX9 is OLD school no a days.
Microsoft flat out blew it with Flight, plain and simple. End of story.
Microsoft flat out blew it with Flight, plain and simple. End of story.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
/post
#32
jcovelli
-
- Members
-
- 596 posts
Private Pilot - IFR
- Location:WI
Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:31 AM
ChaoticBeauty, on Feb 15 2012, 09:42 AM, said:
ok - 42% dx10 31% dx11 = 73% people have dx10 or higher
thanks for the conformation
#33
yimmy149
-
- Members
-
- 500 posts
Private Pilot - IFR
- Location:KSEA
Posted 15 February 2012 - 05:04 PM
jcovelli, on Feb 15 2012, 06:31 AM, said:
ok - 42% dx10 31% dx11 = 73% people have dx10 or higher
thanks for the conformation
thanks for the conformation
It's even higher than that, you didn't count the 19% that have DX10 on XP. So it's over 90% DX10+ for ppl with Steam.
#34
ChaoticBeauty
-
- Members
-
- 574 posts
Private Pilot - IFR
Posted 15 February 2012 - 05:13 PM
yimmy149, on Feb 16 2012, 12:04 AM, said:
It's even higher than that, you didn't count the 19% that have DX10 on XP. So it's over 90% DX10+ for ppl with Steam.
Those with DX10/11 and XP can't take advantage of it, but since Windows 7 usage keeps increasing, I wouldn't be surprised if it jumps to over 80% really soon.
