Simviation Forums

I'm not 100% sure if this is genuine but I'm confident that it is. Apparently this screenshot was uploaded to Flight's Facebook page and soon removed.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BYgfFUm3ZEM/T ... Leaked.jpg

The USS Missourri docked at Pearl Harbour I assume. I think I saw this screen a while back. I've been looking at the
Palm tree shadows and they seem to me to be far to massive. But cool looking none the less. 

just my normal rant....... AGAIN with hawaii???? when will Micro$oft start showing pictures of other places??? London, Paris, Tokyo, Greenwich, Moscow??? I dont know about the rest of you, but the WORLD does have other places to fly in other than HAWAII !!!!

maybe because hawaii has the general features:cities,flats,beaches,mountains,water and rainforests.

or because they are taking there time and that's the most finished part.

or because that's the only detailed scenery m$ is going to make. 

or maybe because Hawaii Is United States 

now I got to admit that If that Picture is "Flight" all I ca say is
Daaaaeammmm!!! Wow!!!

There are so many other beautiful locations on earth. Tepuis,e.t.c Why only Hawaii? But anyway, as I was reading on another thread, Microsoft can't give as what we all want. That's why REX, PMDG and other developers including freeware ones are there. To improve. . My computer has just needed a reboot after looking at that picture

my rant basically comes from Micro$oft saying on the FSX DELUXE box and I quote!!...

More than 24,000 realistic airports are your launch point to anywhere in the world you want to travel.

24,000 huh??? THEN WHY DO WE NEED ORBX TO MAKE THEM "BETTER"?? Why do we need other developers to make anything better if they are supposed to be realistic??   and Now that Flight is supposed to be "THE MOST REALISTIC FLIGHT ENVIRONMENT EVER", im taking that with a 5 gallon bucket of salt, and crying BULLSNOT the whole time.   FSX was supposed to be just that.  Everyone Marveled at FSX right before it came out, only to be let down on FPS and scenery that was a tiny bit better than FS9, it was, but not by much.

Micro$oft did the same thing with only showing HAWAII before they launched FSX.  my question to Micro$oft is, "where the @#$%^ is the rest of the damn world???"

my rant basically comes from Micro$oft saying on the FSX DELUXE box and I quote!!...

More than 24,000 realistic airports are your launch point to anywhere in the world you want to travel.

24,000 huh??? THEN WHY DO WE NEED ORBX TO MAKE THEM "BETTER"?? Why do we need other developers to make anything better if they are supposed to be realistic??

my rant basically comes from Micro$oft saying on the FSX DELUXE box and I quote!!...

More than 24,000 realistic airports are your launch point to anywhere in the world you want to travel.

24,000 huh??? THEN WHY DO WE NEED ORBX TO MAKE THEM "BETTER"?? Why do we need other developers to make anything better if they are supposed to be realistic??

maybe someone will reply If you spend 10.000 dollars in a computer you can play FSX

My point exactly, and this is EXACTLY what it will take to even remotely enjoy Flight.

Has ANYONE.. anyone, ever seen the specs on the computers that Micro$oft uses to test and try out their 'games' (not just flight) but others as well?? Because THAT should be the Benchmark or Minimum requirement(s) on our systems so that we can get the same results that they get. Because, I can seriously say that they are NOT using a $300 Desktop bought at Walmart, but they are using a $5,000+ (possibly) Alienware computer.  We are not as spoiled as they are, and they are not gonna give us the same results they get.  If they did, we would be as happy as a lark and NOT need 3rd party designers except for aircraft (which I can only bet that FLIGHT is going to deal primarily with GA aircraft and not Heavy Tubes, or Military)  Here we go again with another let down. 

Maybe Micro$oft needs to change the name of their product line to "MICRO$OFT CRASH" because to me, FS2000 was a stable platform, 2002=stable, 2004/FS9 = some problems but still fairly stable, FSX..."We're loosing altitude quickly",   Flight =Green bar at the top saying "CRASH" and everyone goes back to FS9!!!! LMAO

i think they should release a cheap(5-10 bucks maybe?)/free online-available alpha/beta testing game.
so they can see how it runs on a normal/crap computer.

but if thats hawaii the rest must be atleast a bit better then fsx.

we would be as happy as a lark and NOT need 3rd party designers

I think you're missing the point here. The biggest attraction of the MSFS series (for me anyway) has always been the open architecture platform allowing freeware developers to create their own addons. From reading between the lines I doubt this will be possible with Flight. The "suits" at Microsoft never understood the principle of freeware. It's alien to everything they believe in.

to me, FS2000 was a stable platform

Hmmm. FS2000 has different memories for me. The development team completely lost the plot IMHO. It took me a couple of weeks to install it successfully & when I finally succeeded it was full of bugs. IIRC

fs2002 is been the best flight sim so far, and i just hope that flight bring something close to that.
and i seen that pic before thats not new.

After FS'98, and the rather poor FS2000, FS2002 was/is an excellent step-up in the series.
It took me ages to be encouraged to install my new FS2004 to replace it!
Although I now have FSX I still cant be encouraged to swap over to it from my FS2004... ...!

Its amazing how you get addicted to a certain version of the Sim......!

Paul...FS2004...FS Nav... 8-)...!

...and FS2004 and FS Nav work flawlessly together in on-line Multiplayer sessions... ...!

I always try to keep in mind that these developement teams such as Aces and others would not have released a dysfunctional flight sim if they had full control of the end product. Fact is, they have to answer to the 'suits' and release when they are told to. Now is Microsoft in full control of itself? No. As soon as a company such as MS becomes  publicly traded on the stock markets they must answer to the shareholders. Just ask RIM (Blackberry). In other words, the 'suits' at MS aren't really at the top of the pecking order but rather the high paid stooges for major shareholders. (Including Mr Bill Gates) The budget for Flight and the release date for Flight, in my humble opinion, will be set by major shareholders who will start whining if MS stock values drop. So I believe these little snippets of Flight in action aren't really made for 'us' hardcore simmers but rather a quarterly powerpoint presentation for investors. There, I've said it! Good night folks.