I don't use fsx anymore, so I really don't now... but in the interest of fairness, that's default fsx scenery?
...one thing that I find surprising, is that Flight runs extremely smoothly with my lowly? P4 dual core, 2.8 GHz processor, 2GB system memory, and GE-Force 9500GT 1-GB Graphics card at maximum graphical settings, (even though it recommends that I run it at medium to low settings, with my existing hardware!).
So there must be some difference in the internal graphics programming/coding between Flight and FSX...(which runs extremely poorly on my hardware!).
Maybe the new Flight programming/coding is more efficient than the original Ace's FSX?
Paul... ...!
I downloaded the free version of Microsoft Flight followed by the Hawaii Package and the Maule M-7-260C Orion. I have since compared flying the Maule Orion in FSX to flying it in MF over and around Oahu. Apparently Microsoft sees MF as an improvement over FSX as they put it "developed from the ground up". I have a hard time believing this after comparing numerous MF and FSX screens over different parts of the Island.
The following are several screens that compare MF with FSX with the Maule approaching Diamondhead and flying over Hawaii International. You be the judge whether MF shows any improvement over FSX.
025 FSX - Diamondhead
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 859820.jpg
032 MF - Diamondhead
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 867196.jpg
015 FSX - Hawaii International
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 875993.jpg
006 MF - Hawaii International
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 902516.jpg
Perhaps it's due to the lack of other features in Flight at this point (AI, ATC, dynamic weather, global scenery) that allows it to run so smoothly, where as with FSX those built in features draw resources from the CPU and GPU.
I downloaded the free version of Microsoft Flight followed by the Hawaii Package and the Maule M-7-260C Orion. I have since compared flying the Maule Orion in FSX to flying it in MF over and around Oahu. Apparently Microsoft sees MF as an improvement over FSX as they put it "developed from the ground up". I have a hard time believing this after comparing numerous MF and FSX screens over different parts of the Island.
The following are several screens that compare MF with FSX with the Maule approaching Diamondhead and flying over Hawaii International. You be the judge whether MF shows any improvement over FSX.
025 FSX - Diamondhead
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 859820.jpg
032 MF - Diamondhead
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 867196.jpg
015 FSX - Hawaii International
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 875993.jpg
006 MF - Hawaii International
https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 902516.jpg
First off, Flight is visually far improved over FSX. I know this because all during development, I did the comparison screenshots each month with default FSX, max settings, and matching weather.
Second, there is a problem with your screenshots. You are using add-ons in FSX and different weather settings. (specifically in the final shot.) Please tell me how in the world this is supposed to show the true improvement? Comparing default to default is a comparison...comparing add-ons to default is not.
What I would like to see are pure default comparisons between FSX and Flight. Obviously, if you have Flight DLC content, that is alright to use, as it only adds locations and planes. But adding stuff to FSX that changes the way the sim actually looks isn't a good comparison.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 267 guests