May FSX and Flight Comparison Screenshots

[Strategic Retreat]

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!

[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!

[Strategic Retreat]

I have read all your messages. I understand that you don't want Flight to be what you think it will be.

Your previous answer, forgive me, belies you.

I just don't see how someone could have so many bad things to say about something that hasn't even been released yet. We really don't have much information, either. It's just starting to crack me up after reading all the negativity, because it's obvious when you look at the screenshots that Flight is indeed a huge improvement, and many of the replies I've seen on other forums have said the same...it looks better.

And that's it. You. Are. Not Getting. It.

Flight (still ominously not Simulator) promises to be very good...

Graphically.

That's all.

When I said I prefer FS9 graphics on a simulator rather than uber graphics on a game, I. Meant. Exactly. That.

Another game of planes on my PC, no matter how nice looking and maybe better coded than FSX. I. Do. Not. Need.

If the new has nothing better than slicker graphics in its resume, I'd rather remain with FS9. I did it with FSX, and I'm quite ready to persevere.

Face the facts. All the various requests from users who wanted the simulation engine upgraded in a certain way (vectored thrust, not flat runways that follows ground, rain that actually makes the runways slippery instead of only looking wet... and so on) were, up to FSX, thrown away as spam mail by FS coders, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Graphics? Those were beefed up, in FSX in such an asinine way that ONLY RECENTLY (five years since its first marketing, I mean... really... what the hell were they thinking?), the hardware is starting getting anywhere near powerful enough to ensure decent performances with it (but still not cheaply, though).

Period.

I understand you are one of those who fervently believes graphics makes the sim.

I. Do. Not.

I do not care how much you or others scream, for me a NEW simulator is MORE than advanced graphics pasted on an engine that goes back to FS5. And this WANTING to put aside the concerning news of M$ wanting to create an Apple-style closed market on the add-ons for Flight.

This said, I repeat myself stating that I still hope that something good will come out of it. I swear, I'd REALLY like for it to be EVERYTHING good for EVERYONE... but M$ track record worries me more than I can express.

This is why this time I WILL NOT buy as soon as I can, like for FSX (that has found an use only 5 years later for the kids' entertainment). Once burned, twice shy. If Flight will not meet MY expectation, I WILL start SERIOUSLY looking for alternatives, because, as planes games go, Crimson Skies and Airfix Dogfighter still give me hours of fun (and there I can use guns too) and FSX entertains the kids still. I seriously don't need sloppy newcomers with tons of make-up to appear better, but nothing new under the bonnet to justify their newness, and ESPECIALLY if they drag with them all the previously discussed Apple-style sad, sad decisions.

In closure of this War and Peace sequel I just wrote to clear my position, let it be clear that I do not ask nor actually expect anyone to follow me on my road. I am not a Messiah (Berlusconi being delusional on this matter is more than enough for this millennium, here in Italy) and. Do. Not. Want. Disciples. I'm simply stating what I will do, appealing to my freedom to choose whatever I like as long it is legal.

And in the same manner, I acknowledge you, and whomever thinks like you, are and will be free to do whatever you think best for yourselves.

Amen.

[BrandonF]

I have read all your messages. I understand that you don't want Flight to be what you think it will be.

Your previous answer, forgive me, belies you.

I just don't see how someone could have so many bad things to say about something that hasn't even been released yet. We really don't have much information, either. It's just starting to crack me up after reading all the negativity, because it's obvious when you look at the screenshots that Flight is indeed a huge improvement, and many of the replies I've seen on other forums have said the same...it looks better.

And that's it. You. Are. Not Getting. It.

Flight (still ominously not Simulator) promises to be very good...

Graphically.

That's all.

When I said I prefer FS9 graphics on a simulator rather than uber graphics on a game, I. Meant. Exactly. That.

Another game of planes on my PC, no matter how nice looking and maybe better coded than FSX. I. Do. Not. Need.

If the new has nothing better than slicker graphics in its resume, I'd rather remain with FS9. I did it with FSX, and I'm quite ready to persevere.

Face the facts. All the various requests from users who wanted the simulation engine upgraded in a certain way (vectored thrust, not flat runways that follows ground, rain that actually makes the runways slippery instead of only looking wet... and so on) were, up to FSX, thrown away as spam mail by FS coders, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Graphics? Those were beefed up, in FSX in such an asinine way that ONLY RECENTLY (five years since its first marketing, I mean... really... what the hell were they thinking?), the hardware is starting getting anywhere near powerful enough to ensure decent performances with it (but still not cheaply, though).

Period.

I understand you are one of those who fervently believes graphics makes the sim.

I. Do. Not.

I do not care how much you or others scream, for me a NEW simulator is MORE than advanced graphics pasted on an engine that goes back to FS5. And this WANTING to put aside the concerning news of M$ wanting to create an Apple-style closed market on the add-ons for Flight.

This said, I repeat myself stating that I still hope that something good will come out of it. I swear, I'd REALLY like for it to be EVERYTHING good for EVERYONE... but M$ track record worries me more than I can express.

This is why this time I WILL NOT buy as soon as I can, like for FSX (that has found an use only 5 years later for the kids' entertainment). Once burned, twice shy. If Flight will not meet MY expectation, I WILL start SERIOUSLY looking for alternatives, because, as planes games go, Crimson Skies and Airfix Dogfighter still give me hours of fun (and there I can use guns too) and FSX entertains the kids still. I seriously don't need sloppy newcomers with tons of make-up to appear better, but nothing new under the bonnet to justify their newness, and ESPECIALLY if they drag with them all the previously discussed Apple-style sad, sad decisions.

In closure of this War and Peace sequel I just wrote to clear my position, let it be clear that I do not ask nor actually expect anyone to follow me on my road. I am not a Messiah (Berlusconi being delusional on this matter is more than enough for this millennium, here in Italy) and. Do. Not. Want. Disciples. I'm simply stating what I will do, appealing to my freedom to choose whatever I like as long it is legal.

And in the same manner, I acknowledge you, and whomever thinks like you, are and will be free to do whatever you think best for yourselves.

Amen.

I never said that good graphics made a good sim, did I? Never. Not once did I say that AT ALL.

Flight is not based on an engine from FS5. In fact, one of the FSX SP updates (I believe it was SP2) included a lot of rewritten code, which is not something that is widely known. (looked and felt pretty much like the same sim, but was quite different inside. Still had the performance issues, obviously)

No where has Microsoft ever said that Flight is going to be a simple game for kids. I repeat, THEY DID NOT SAY THAT. They say that they are opening Flight up to long time flight sim enthusiasts, AS WELL AS the general audience of aviation fans and casual gamers. This does not mean that they have to "dumb it down." It is more likely that they will add more features that the casual users will like so that they don't have to touch the advanced stuff we use. Bottom line, it won't be a silly arcade game for kids. Just take a look at the Flight FAQ, news updates, and articles in PC Pilot. They have not forgotten about us, I'm sure. 

Now, if I'm wrong....

[Strategic Retreat]

I never said that good graphics made a good sim, did I? Never. Not once did I say that AT ALL.

Who was the one going about saying that he didn't understand how some people, and in the specific I, could speak bad of what looked like a great step forward made under the point of view of the graphic appearances? :-?

Good looks alone a good product do not necessarily make. Just remember FSX.

Flight is not based on an engine from FS5. In fact, one of the FSX SP updates (I believe it was SP2) included a lot of rewritten code, which is not something that is widely known. (looked and felt pretty much like the same sim, but was quite different inside. Still had the performance issues, obviously)

I'm almost tempted to challenge you to put your money where your mouth is, but I CAN SEE it would be like kicking a puppy. the rewritten code in the SECOND PATCH for FSX only gives it a limited ability to use multi-core CPUs (but still NO multiple graphic cards either, for the supreme joy of the owners of such expensive hardware optional).

Period.

It's quite the renown fact that NO advancements of Flight Simulator's simulation engine have been made AT BEST ever since FS2002, but there is quite the vast ground for suspicion that those were only a rethinking of how the planes behaved in presence of the then newly adopted on-line weather. MEANING, just some adjustments here and there. NO real step forward. Just the same sim engine trimmed here and there to cram it into a new box and sold for wholesale new. :-/

If you're not convinced about this, then please explain us all why there is still great [disregarded] calling for upgrades that were NEVER made, like the already mentioned vectored thrust, slippery ground when wet and so on.


[quote]No where has Microsoft ever said that Flight is going to be a simple game for kids. I repeat, THEY DID NOT SAY THAT. They say that they are opening Flight up to long time flight sim enthusiasts, AS WELL AS the general audience of aviation fans and casual gamers. This does not mean that they have to "dumb it down." It is more likely that they will add more features that the casual users will like so that they don't have to touch the advanced stuff we use. Bottom line, it won't be a silly arcade game for kids. Just take a look at the Flight FAQ, news updates, and articles in PC Pilot. They have not forgotten about us, I'm sure.

[JBaymore]

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

[pete]

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

[pete]

[quote]

Yes exactly ...

At this moment there can be no other reason for thinking otherwise ....

So sites like this will be left to pick up the open source development addons - but nothing to add to 'MS Flight' because that looks like it will be all filtered through the 'Central Marketplace'.

'Flight Simulator' is a classic program - not only through it's longetivity but also through it's 10'000 of contributors to the development of this great program. Yet M$ ditched it for financial reasons.

In the same vein I would imagine M$ would buy a Leonardo da Vinci painting and cut it into 10cm sections for sale

[BrandonF]

Not sure where you guys are getting your information. Things said in these last two replies are what spread rumors. We have no way of predicting exactly what Flight will be like. It's best to wait and see how it actually will be. No one ever said sites like SimV, Avsim, SOH, etc will be done because add-ons will only be available at the online store and that they will only be payware.

[Slotback]

I (mostly) agree with Strategic Retreat.

The screenshots of the scenery look very nice. Hopefully they have similarly improved the rest of the sim.

However, from looking at screenshots of MS Flight it is obvious that it still uses pretty much the same outdated engine as FSX. Given that, I doubt we need to worry about the engine itself actually being dumbed down. However given what MS did with FSX, I certainly wouldn't be surprised it was just FSX with some new mesh, new textures, HDR and soft-shadows, and new aircraft, because that's all they've shown so far.

In a post FSX world, I don't see why MS release screenshots of better scenery instead of screenshots of new features or actual improvements.

X-Plane 10 is still in development, already they have talked about or shown off new aircraft, a completely new lighting engine, new clouds, new autogen, new AI. Big overhaul.

Flight? Soft-shadows, HDR (that can be modded into FSX anyway), new mesh and textures (maybe a little bit better than what can be modded into FSX).

Do we know if Flight will be a better or worse simulator than FSX? We do not. We can only hope. But I can't really blame people for getting frustrated or feeling let down at this point.

[BrandonF]

The screenshots of the scenery look very nice. Hopefully they have similarly improved the rest of the sim.

However, from looking at screenshots of MS Flight it is obvious that it still uses pretty much the same outdated engine as FSX. Given that, I doubt we need to worry about the engine itself actually being dumbed down. However given what MS did with FSX, I certainly wouldn't be surprised it was just FSX with some new mesh, new textures, HDR and soft-shadows, and new aircraft, because that's all they've shown so far.

In a post FSX world, I don't see why MS release screenshots of better scenery instead of screenshots of new features or actual improvements.

X-Plane 10 is still in development, already they have talked about or shown off new aircraft, a completely new lighting engine, new clouds, new autogen, new AI. Big overhaul.

Flight? Soft-shadows, HDR (that can be modded into FSX anyway), new mesh and textures (maybe a little bit better than what can be modded into FSX).

Do we know if Flight will be a better or worse simulator than FSX? We do not. We can only hope. But I can't really blame people for getting frustrated or feeling let down at this point.

The engine looks new, but still uses some of the same textures shared with FSX mixed in with new ones. Too much looks different for it to be FSX. And let's not forget this quote from Microsoft in an article in PC Pilot Magazine..."we will take advantage of the expertise and existing elements of the existing FS code base and architecture where it fits..."

And actually, the FSX engine was not that outdated...it was a modernization of the old code.


Microsoft has shown actual improvements, along with new features. Lets look at a few examples.

• The waves meeting the coastline. Nothing like that can be achieved in FSX unless you used a static texture painted onto the ground. You'd have the waves, but they wouldn't move.
• Ground textures no longer stretch on vertical terrain. Can this be done in FSX? Not that I know of.
• Aircraft lighting/shadowing greatly improved. Can this same lighting be achieved in FSX? No.
• Buildings have self shadowing and cast soft shadows. Trees cast shadows on the ground, aircraft, and other trees. Terrain also casts shadows on the trees.
• Weather system appears improved. From the few screenshots we've seen, it's hard to tell if it is just some texture updates to the clouds, or the actual rendering of them.

All that, and default scenery that finally doesn't look like crap. At least not in Hawaii anyway, and it looked pretty bad in FSX. Bigger high detail coverage of any location than we have seen in FSX by default. If the rest of the world looks pretty good, (obviously won't have as much detail, but just a simple texture/autogen replacement would do) and Flight has better performance, it's going to be one nice sim. Imagine when the add-on companies get their grimy little hands on it.

[patchz]

I can't help but wonder if some payware vendors might have been given some information by MS? Rather than slowing down, expecting the future of FSX to go down the tubes,

some of them seem to be accelerating their production. Maybe they are speculating, but it does give food for thought.

[BrandonF]

I can't help but wonder if some payware vendors might have been given some information by MS? Rather than slowing down, expecting the future of FSX to go down the tubes,

some of them seem to be accelerating their production. Maybe they are speculating, but it does give food for thought.

Interesting topic. I suspect that they are trying to hurry up and get the most sales out of FSX add-ons as they can before Flight comes along and sales go down for FSX add-ons as people switch over to Flight and want to improve it. Just a though.

[Daube]

The engine looks new

No. It really doesn't look like anything new.

but still uses some of the same textures shared with FSX mixed in with new ones.

Textures are not the only thing. The mesh looks exactely the same, same smoothing system, same landclass system, just some different content shown (different rock textures and more precise default mesh and landclass for that particular area).

Too much looks different for it to be FSX.

Not at all.
Only the shadowing system looks different. The rest is not different from what FSX can display.

And actually, the FSX engine was not that outdated...it was a modernization of the old code.

It was not really outdated in the way it was displaying the world, it was outdated in the way it was handling the physics and the graphical effects around that world. It still looks good, but outdated definitely, especially when you look at XPlane 10 preview screenshots.

Microsoft has shown actual improvements, along with new features. Lets look at a few examples.

The waves meeting the coastline. Nothing like that can be achieved in FSX unless you used a static texture painted onto the ground. You'd have the waves, but they wouldn't move.

They are improved for sure. However we could get better moving waves in FSX simply by editing the actual wave textures. Sure the ones in Flight look better than defaut FSX, but the main problem is that nobody ever created anything for waves in FSX....

[*]Ground textures no longer stretch on vertical terrain. Can this be done in FSX? Not that I know of.

I'm not sure it doesn't strech anymore, I wouldn't confirm that too fast.
The "strech" effect can be compensated simply by using a higher resolution rock texture, but I think we should look at more screenshots about this before.

[*]Aircraft lighting/shadowing greatly improved. Can this same lighting be achieved in FSX? No.

That's right.

[*]Buildings have self shadowing and cast soft shadows. Trees cast shadows on the ground, aircraft, and other trees. Terrain also casts shadows on the trees.

This is also definitely an improvement over FSX.

[*]Weather system appears improved. From the few screenshots we've seen, it's hard to tell if it is just some texture updates to the clouds, or the actual rendering of them.

No, it just look the same.

All that, and default scenery that finally doesn't look like crap. At least not in Hawaii anyway,

Not in Hawaii, that's the important part.
Default scenery in FSX doesn't look like crap, "at least not in St Marteen". We all know what kind of ridiculous meshes and landclasses we got for the rest of the world... The situation will be no different in Flight.

and it looked pretty bad in FSX.

Let's compare generic with generic.

Bigger high detail coverage of any location than we have seen in FSX by default.

This is just propaganda. You don't know anything about "any location", only screens about Hawaii were given so far.

If the rest of the world looks pretty good, (obviously won't have as much detail, but just a simple texture/autogen replacement would do) and Flight has better performance, it's going to be one nice sim.

I agree on that, focusing on performance.

[quote] Imagine when the add-on companies get their grimy little hands on it.

[Strategic Retreat]

I have actually little to add to Daube's answer, beside pointing out a pair of problems.

The engine looks new but still uses some of the same textures shared with FSX mixed in with new ones. Too much looks different for it to be FSX.

Are we going to discuss the newness of the sim engine on how things ONLY LOOKING at static screenshots?

You have a little idea of how preposterous that kind of discussion would sound, right? :-?

And let's not forget this quote from Microsoft in an article in PC Pilot Magazine..."we will take advantage of the expertise and existing elements of the existing FS code base and architecture where it fits..."

And let's not forget that this is not the first time they promised heaven, only to send everything to hell down the line, in the past.

It becomes increasingly difficult to believe the sometimes bombastic boasts about the greatness of their code, when the results we have under our eyes is something like FSX. Suspicion and distrust is something THEY seeded among the users, not anyone of us. :-/

And actually, the FSX engine was not that outdated...it was a modernization of the old code.

The quoted statement has left me open mouthed... enough to make me pose you a SERIOUS question: forgive me, are you a M$ shareholder?

Answer to your startling claim above: Why do you need to buy a new car, when you can MODERNIZE your old and knackered one?

Because, in the end, modernized and all, ALWAYS YOUR OLD CAR IS. If you decide to sell it, they won't accept the distinction, and would NOT give you the money a new car is worth, and nor the money spent in "modernizing" it either.

For all the rest, I say this: WE all have but ONE power, and that is to vote with our money.

Let's use this power WELL for once this time, shall we? Let us reward the GOOD and leave the <expletive deleted> to rot, advertisings be damned to everlasting hell. We pay with GOOD MONEY, not the Monopoly cash, so if it's good like our money, let's buy and enjoy it rewarding the good work made. If it's bad, DO NOT buy it and enjoy something else that is as good as our money instead. Doing this, it will send a message, I hope.

Amen.