Looks less flashy than FSX, and in truth its coloration and conspicuous absence of the horrible FSX-style blue haze, remembers me of a very tweaked FS9 (only coloration, mind)... but... :-?
All the graphic recoding and texture refining and STILL no cloud shadow... what will it take to make them understand that is good for realistic clouds to be fluffy-looking, and/or detailed, and/or sometimes reflective on water, but MAINLY, to be concretely realistic, they SHOULD PROJECT A SHADOW on the ground or water below? It's basic logic, yet they seem unable to grasp it, and it's been decades too.
Edit: Grammatical Correction
Honestly, if it's so bad, why do you bother to hang out here? It looks amazing as is, and that's a fact. Way better than you can possibly get in FS9 and FSX even with add-ons. I'm sure there's a reason they haven't shown us cloud shadows. It may be a performance reason. Getting something like cloud shadows to show and not have an impact on performance can not possibly be an easy task. Give them team some credit for the huge amount of work they've had to do already just to rewrite the graphics engine!
You're the only person I've seen who is unimpressed even after seeing the comparison shots. (I've posted these shots around at a few forums and received many replies with people's thoughts on Flight completely changing for the better.) This tells me something...
You're the only person I've seen who is unimpressed even after seeing the comparison shots. (I've posted these shots around at a few forums and received many replies with people's thoughts on Flight completely changing for the better.) This tells me something...
That makes two persons then.
I'm not impressed at all by those shots.
You know what ? Your ability to reproduce those screenshots in FSX is far more impressive than the screenshots themselves
Here is the best I could get in my FSX, and that's far from what you got
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 266901.jpg
In this screenshot, I'm using the freeware Hawaii mesh coupled with a landclass that was made for FS9, as well as the FSX mountain mod.
How could you not be impressed? Flight looks nothing like FSX except for the clouds. Other than that, it looks almost completely new. (New and much better than the crappy default fsx scenery)
Sure, you can load FSX up with a bunch of payware add-ons and get it to look about as good as Flight. But Flight looks just as good, if not better out of the box...and likely not just in Hawaii,
depending on if they are working out the horrible airport background textures and silly landclass transitions. Imagine what add-on developers could do with Flight after they get their hands on it...
How could you not be impressed? Flight looks nothing like FSX except for the clouds. Other than that, it looks almost completely new. (New and much better than the crappy default fsx scenery) Sure, you can load FSX up with a bunch of payware add-ons and get it to look about as good as Flight. But Flight looks just as good, if not better out of the box...
Imagine what add-on developers could do with Flight after they get their hands on it...
How could you not be impressed? Flight looks nothing like FSX except for the clouds. Other than that, it looks almost completely new. (New and much better than the crappy default fsx scenery)
I am not impressed at all because on those screenshots, Flight looks like nothing more than FSX with alternative ground/rock textures. The scenery casting shadows on autogen objects are still the one and only new feature that we could see so far.Sure, you can load FSX up with a bunch of payware add-ons and get it to look about as good as Flight. But Flight looks just as good, if not better out of the box...and likely not just in Hawaii,
Aren't you getting a bit too optimistic here ? It's quite obvious that Hawaii islands will be quite detailled (but still imprecise, if you compare with Google Earth pictures), but I really don't think that the whole world will get such a "precise" landclass. What we're seeing in those shots is just the Flight-equivalent of FSX's St-Marteen island. St-Marteen sure looked good in default FSX, but the rest of the world was not as much detailled (appart from the official "detailled" cities/airports). It will be just the same in Flight, just for different places.depending on if they are working out the horrible airport background textures and silly landclass transitions. Imagine what add-on developers could do with Flight after they get their hands on it...
They could do exactely the same than OrbX guys could do with FSX, from what I've seen so far. Flight is taking the same path than FSX took. FS9 had some landclass terrain types, FSX had much more, and hopefully Flight will get much more than FSX too, but there is nothing impressive or unexpected here.
Some people have very short memories. Remember the "magic screenies" posted on the FS Insider website before Acceleration was released? http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1008972/microsoft-flight-simulator-developers-images-paint-misleading-picture
Have we seen anything like that for Flight done yet? No....only the announcement trailer and webisode 1 were fake. Since then, it's all been in game. (obvious enough that they are showing us what we will get....maybe more, maybe less...point is, they are not showing us a bunch of photoshopped screenshots this time.) Microsoft has clearly learned their lesson this time.
I haven't seen any mention of payware either. We already know Flight will have an SDK. (there was an ad a while back where MS was looking for someone to be the lead designer or something on the Flight SDK)The way I see it, there's a big chance that it's not going to be kept to the payware developers. People have to learn how to use the new tools available, and new users aren't going to want to pay for an SDK or release payware as their first Flight add-on.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 374 guests