May FSX and Flight Comparison Screenshots

[alrot]

  and the uncertainty continues,That's exactly what Microsoft wants , this will be the best business for M$ ,everyone will buy "Flight" and everyone will cry too

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/new ... tor-deve...

[quote]It seems obvious to me that MS wants to control all addons via the Games for Windows

[dapeeper]

Well well well. So it time now to be forced to buy a new computer. I remember when FS2004 came out. With my computer I had that ran most software quite well, I could get only a stutter from FS2004.

Few years later and FSX comes out with "improved" graphics. Fire it up and with the computer that runs FS2004 with everything maxed, I get quite a stutter. So again I pack it away and wait.

Few years on and I have a faster computer. So I dig up FSX and it runs quite well but not with everything maxed. Oc course I cannot max aotogen and no clouds and few ground vehicles. Load a few custom sceneries and the famous stutter appears. My screamer is brought to its FPS knees. Getting 4 to 6 fps and I have to make 2 cuos of tea while FSX and the sceneries load.

While the graphics in the screenshots look better, at what cost?

Sure they will claim that my current system is not powerful enough and I must buy Windows 8 and another computer if I want to get any thing more than 2 FPS.

What I would like to see in any screenshots is the actual FPS and the hardware that is being used to achieve those figures. Otherwise any screen shot means as much to me as an image from google - nothing.

Sure Windows 7 can "run" in 256MB of memory, but what they leave out is that then you can run nothing else.

I wanna see their money where their mouth is. Show me the hardware and the FPS or show me nothing.

[BrandonF]

[quote]

[BrandonF]

What I would like to see in any screenshots is the actual FPS and the hardware that is being used to achieve those figures. Otherwise any screen shot means as much to me as an image from google - nothing.

Sure Windows 7 can "run" in 256MB of memory, but what they leave out is that then you can run nothing else.

I wanna see their money where their mouth is. Show me the hardware and the FPS or show me nothing.

When has any game company ever shown something like this while a game/simulator is in development? It's something that just wouldn't probably happen.

[Tunafish]

Hello All!!
and thanks for all the comments about "Flight".

As someone who is still mastering the "joys" of scenery, airplane creation etc. in FS9, and who is getting ready to upgrade to a "really powerful" system this fall, I think the time has come and would really like to know if with "Flight", we'll be able to do all these glorious things using the incredible range of freeware utilities and addons we've been given on various sites so far?

I have FSX in the box and ready for instal; but is this a case of "skipit" and move on?

Just thought I'd post this and put the cat among the pigeons!.......
(but REALLY looking forward to ALL your comments!)

[Travis]

Well, Tuna: not sure if you've been reading the speculation going on around here, but that's all it is.  Speculation.  We have very little in the way of definitive evidence, and even less actual assurance that the final product will function as they say it will.  There is just no way to know at this point, and anything else is less than hearsay.  What I would suggest is that you keep working with FS9.  When you get that new rig, load up FSX and see how it performs.  If it works well, stick with it.  If not, go back to FS9.  Then wait until Flight hits the shelves and read what will (inevitably) be written about it extensively on this site and many others.  If it sounds like it would work well on your machine at that point, then go out and purchase.  There is absolutely no reason to waste a perfectly good copy of FSX just because something better comes out.  As the adage goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[pfevrier]

I feel a lot of animosity on this post 
Obviously MS Flight looks better than FSX. To some people it's miles better, for others it's just mere improvements. The fact is you can't deny what the screenshots show, just plain better.
Some people will argue that they can get FSX to look like that, and I think you can get very close, but that is with a lot of payware addons. Then not all these paywares might not be compatible then you get bugs, crashes, unstability, etc... If MS Flight delivers this quality right out of the box, I'm very happy. Others might enjoy X-Plane 10 better...
The point is that we should all be happy as in the not-so-distant past Microsoft had abandoned its flight sim followers... and now they're catering to us again. The more choices we have the better we'll be. Rejoice in the fact that our hobby is not dead, but about to see a new dawn with MS Flight, X-Plane 10, and others like DCS A10 Warthog!

My 2 cents... Now start shooting 

[Travis]

Ahem!  Clearing the guns . . .

Yes, MS has said that they are now catering to the FS community, but they have said that on numerous occasions.

I place much stock in the FS franchise, simply because they have, in the past ten years, consistently delivered a product that tried to meet the expectations of the FS community.  That community is as diverse and as complicated as any in gaming, since it demands complete dedication to the hard-core sim pilot, yet also tries to retain a sense of "availability" to those folks that aren't actually looking for the "as real as it gets" genre.

Those of us that truly want a sim that encompasses the most rigorous and intense aspects of being a sim pilot, versus those that want to just get their jollies by buzzing the tower, have been free to do so up until now.

However, I see that Flight seems to be aiming more towards the avid gamer, rather than the sim pilot in the last two installments.

Sure, we had some new features of aircraft manipulation in FSX, but the main focus was on the look of the sim, rather than the realism of the sim, which is a trend that I see continuing with Flight.

In 2007, I sent a message to the MS (ACES) team, asking that with FSX they develop a way to incorporate true VTOL capability, which has been a constant bother in every installment of FS.  However, they instead focused more on creating dynamic scenery (which ended up being poorly written) than actually developing a new platform that would allow new types of engines and flight dynamics that would allow the 3rd party designers freedom to explore the aircraft designs that are currently being tested.  As a result, we (as designers) have had to rely on legacy software that makes it very difficult to simulate the current aircraft systems in production.

This is the main reason I haven't worked on any aircraft project since the Angel 44.  I refuse to work with a system that makes creating an aircraft that actually exists so difficult.

I started a V-22 project in 2004, but was disillusioned when I found that I couldn't create a true VTOL aircraft without extensive XML knowledge, so I scrapped it.  It would have been a freeware project (I never will make payware products!), but I could not get it off the ground unless I actually paid some developers to get their XML codes that would allow for true VTOL capability.

My hope for this newest installment is that we, as a community, are not forced to set our standards low, simply for the sake of selling to those that would turn FS into a game.

We want a sim.  It is as simple as that.  We want to experience the gamut of flying the aircraft that exist in today's world, and we want to have the option to fly aircraft that may exist in the world to come.  Don't skimp us on the technical data in expense of the visual media.

I would rather have a sim that looked like FS9 that allowed me complete control of the system, than have a sim that reiterated the same functions again and again.

Yes, I ranted, but I think it's justified . . .

[patchz]

I understand what you are saying Travis. But why can't we have both. There are those purists that are more interested in realsim, but there are also those of us

that want more realistic looking scenery without using photoreal, so it looks good from 200' AGL. I would love to see realistic VTOL capability, as well as vector thrust.

But not at the expense of going back to FS9 quality scenery. And I think MS is obligated to give both, at least at some level, if they want to reach the whole community.

[Strategic Retreat]

I understand what you are saying Travis. But why can't we have both.

1) Willingness.

2) Respect.

3) Consideration.

Willingness to work on it. To invest on a project that would make what they think as a game a better simulator as well.

Respect towards the admittedly minority who buys their software as a simulator.

Consideration of the requests of the buyers as more than mail spam.

...

Does ANYONE see that, in any amount? :-/

Personally, if REALLY forced to choose, I think that a FS9 graphics on a simulator is better than a Flight graphics on a game. Even if still desperately hoping I am dead wrong, for those who want a simulator, I guess Flight (not Simulator anymore) is the implied signal to officially start looking for alternatives. A sad moment.

[BrandonF]

Personally, if REALLY forced to choose, I think that a FS9 graphics on a simulator is better than a Flight graphics on a game. Even if still desperately hoping I am dead wrong, for those who want a simulator, I guess Flight (not Simulator anymore) is the implied signal to officially start looking for alternatives. A sad moment.

Oh man, you're posts are just getting funny now. FS9 graphics better than Flight? That really makes no sense at all....which is why it's funny!

[Steve M]

I think you could compare graphics untill the cows come home, but without knowing what kind of hardware and software the MS developers are using with Flight screenies or framerate data as they take the shot it's all kind of moot at this point. I still have my FSX if Flight is kicked out of the nest to soon. If I were to take a screen shot from my FSX  a few years ago and compare it to a recent FSX screenie, there is a vast difference. Same Sim, different look.   [ch9788] 8-)

[BrandonF]

[quote]I think you could compare graphics untill the cows come home, but without knowing what kind of hardware and software the MS developers are using with Flight screenies or framerate data as they take the shot it's all kind of moot at this point. I still have my FSX if Flight is kicked out of the nest to soon. If I were to take a screen shot from my FSX

[Steve M]

[quote][quote]I think you could compare graphics untill the cows come home, but without knowing what kind of hardware and software the MS developers are using with Flight screenies or framerate data as they take the shot it's all kind of moot at this point. I still have my FSX if Flight is kicked out of the nest to soon. If I were to take a screen shot from my FSX

[BrandonF]

[quote]Brandon, I am refering to your original topic, not so much the FS9 comparisons.