Simviation Forums

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


032 MF - Diamondhead


015 FSX - Hawaii International


006 MF - Hawaii International

I don't use fsx anymore, so I really don't know... but in the interest of fairness, that's default fsx scenery?

Well I don't know... :-?..!

When I fly around the Hawaiian Islands in my FS 2004 in my little Cessna 150, with my various installed scenery mesh, textures, etc, I see the Islands as being extremely mountainous, and undulating, and exciting to fly around, constantly weaving around the mountains, with a surprise around every corner....
...but in my new copy of Flight they are nowhere as hilly, or as exciting!
In fact in most places, they are almost flat...(and a bit boring!)!
The two Flight Sims just don't compare, regarding realistic Terrain detail!

I would much rather explore ALL the islands in my FS 2004... ...!
Flight is OK just for a change of flight; but for fun, and realism, my FSX, and especially my FS 2004, beat it for sure!

Paul.... ...!

FS 2004:
FS Global SE.
Ultimate Terrain USA & Canada.
Selected area scenery mesh.
Real Environment Extreme.
Ground Environment Pro.
VOZ 1.8
...and Google Maps for comparison!

I don't use fsx anymore, so I really don't now... but in the interest of fairness, that's default fsx scenery?

It isn't and I'm wondering what scenery that is aswell. :-?

...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... ...!

...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... ...!

Paul,

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.

Honestly, I don't know why; I don't think I can even touch Flight. My computer is older than yours is!

(Make the 2.8 a 3.0, and remove one core... that's my box!)

Alan 

I wonder, as we had so many problems running Ace's FSX programming on our hardware at the time, maybe the latest programmers have had a re-look at the program code again, and speeded and smoothed things up somewhat, in their edition of Flight?
We have often thought  that maybe Aces rushed the FSX program out a bit too quickly, when a little delay, and re-think regarding the coding, may have improved things somewhat and caused less frustration and heartache?
Perhaps Flight programmers have picked up on it, and improved the programming?
It would be nice if that were the case.. ...!

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

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.

Yeah, I didn't think that was default FSX, so you really can't compare the two. On the other hand though, atleast we can improve, and add to FSX, if we were so inclined... :-/

How can I make a flight from My country to Hawaii , Brandon? where are the jets ? what kind of improvements? , Graphics ? I think the Guys that work in that software did not realize what software they would be compare too ,they did never saw FSX

Its Better the Flight Ace's FSX Photos and valid

Alex I agree with you completely.

Brandon, while comparing default to default would be better this shows one of the many flaws of Flight. FSX is open to third-party development while Flight isn't.

Flight isn't a Flight Simulator.

If it was it should support all of the different types of aircraft which it doesn't.

Also a Flight Sim should have the whole world which Flight doesn't.

So if you think Flight is better that FSX then you

Hit the nail on the head Alex.   Also, the scenery is MegaSceneryX Hawaii.

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.

Mmmm, I think your right.

LOL : the software can find himself

http://www.petenetlive.com/KB/Article/0000359.htm

http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-U ... 0a84817d92

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.

BrandonF,

I enjoy flying the new Microsoft Flight especially nap-of-the-earth.. The scenery is visually improved over the FSX default scenery developed over five years ago. I would expect nothing less than something developed today to be better than its five year old predecessor.

Remember FSX is the tenth version of Microsoft's popular line of Flight Simulators. It was released on October 17, 2006. As a part of that release, Microsoft opened their FSX code allowing outside Software Contractors to develop and sell add-on improvements. These improvements include GEX, UTX, REX, Photo-real Scenery and many other complimentary packages including Aircraft. As a result FSX has changed considerably from its release date. Today it is a very robust, dynamic, and realistic Flight Simulator when applying the improvements developed over the years.

You asked me to please tell you, and I quote, "how in the world this is supposed to show the true improvement?" When you compare FM to FSX, it is both FM and FSX this date (Today) not FM today with FSX over five years ago.

The screens I posted compare FSX today with Microsoft Flight today.

Regards,

Flight Ace

Before I start:

Brandon stated "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. "

Seriously, I respect you defending what you like BUT we must compare to what we have NOW and what we can replace it WITH to make an informed decision.

You expecting us to compare a 2006 default to a current to make that choice, when hell we don't even have access to international areas is just insane 

I believe most choose FSX above MS Flight because no MS Flight user can fly in & take a realistic looking screenshot like most FSX users can in FSX.

Therefore one cannot compare FSX with MS Flight.

The one is a game and the other a pure bred & well expanded simulator.

However,

It just shows that Flight, besides that it is a game, cannot offer the visual and realistic experience FSX can offer and NEVER will due to MS intent to avoid 3rd party development.

As for performance, OF COURSE flight will perform all nice and wacky. It has NO AI, NO ATC and it is one tiny bubble you fly in.

Very little in that bubble compared to FSX.

Add all that to Flight and we talk again about performance. Looks like MS's intent to ellude "gamers" that flight is smoother then FSX worked well.

Please do not get me wrong, I would have used flight if it was a simulator and PLEASE do not tell me it is.

NO AI.
NO wider selection of AC.
NO choice of "where to fly"

Quite frankly, products like P3D will likely become the future follow up to FSX.

P.S: Please make it a rule that screenshots of MS Flight may only be posted where we post pictures of OTHER non simulator screenshot posts eg. the likes of COD etc.