Default Comparison beween FSX and Flight

[Flight Ace]

Brandon said, and I quote, "What I would like to see are pure default comparisons between FSX and Flight".

Well Brandon, I have granted your wish. First bear in mind that the FSX

[BrandonF]

I'm curious to know what your FPS are in Flight? (and with what CPU + graphics card + how much memory) (nevermind, just saw your specs in your sig. Wow, that's quite a system!)

It is semi-true that FSX uses photoreal scenery. What you are actually seeing in most default FSX locations are landclasses. FSX comes with a wide range of landclasses, such as desert, forest, city, etc. These are auto-generated and blended during the development process. The landclasses are used globally, so the textures you see used in San Diego will be the same used in Florida, London, Australia, etc. The landclasses are made of square satellite images and are tile-able. That's why they look so good. Flight uses the same method, with some true (unique) photoscenery thrown in around all of the airstrips/airports. To put it simply, Photoscenery is generally referred to as satellite imagery that is unique to one location. (basically an aerial photo of the location) Landclasses are just general/generic satellite textures used and blended together repeatedly anywhere in the world to try and represent a location. (in many cases, the types of landclasses used in Flight will be fairly close to what the actual satellite imagery would look like because they are blended so well and used correctly.)

[Jetranger]

Thumbs up for the comparsion, bout' like Apples & Oranges, Oil & Water , or, Fred & Ginger, Thunder & Lightining  - Rain & Hail ,,,

[Groundbound1]

I'll gladly say this. The Flight development team definately scored a run with the new water. To bad there isn't a way to port that down to FSX.

[Flight Ace]

I'm curious to know what your FPS are in Flight? (and with what CPU + graphics card + how much memory) (nevermind, just saw your specs in your sig. Wow, that's quite a system!)

It is semi-true that FSX uses photoreal scenery. What you are actually seeing in most default FSX locations are landclasses. FSX comes with a wide range of landclasses, such as desert, forest, city, etc. These are auto-generated and blended during the development process. The landclasses are used globally, so the textures you see used in San Diego will be the same used in Florida, London, Australia, etc. The landclasses are made of square satellite images and are tile-able. That's why they look so good. Flight uses the same method, with some true (unique) photoscenery thrown in around all of the airstrips/airports. To put it simply, Photoscenery is generally referred to as satellite imagery that is unique to one location. (basically an aerial photo of the location) Landclasses are just general/generic satellite textures used and blended together repeatedly anywhere in the world to try and represent a location. (in many cases, the types of landclasses used in Flight will be fairly close to what the actual satellite imagery would look like because they are blended so well and used correctly.)

I am getting a steady 60 FPS running MF with everything topped off. In FSX with everything maxed, I get 150 plus. Hawaii was always an area that one could get good performance.

Makes me wonder how well MF will do in an area like Manhattan, New York. Thanks for the update reference Photo-real/Satellite imagery

[Flight Ace]

I'll gladly say this. The Flight development team definately scored a run with the new water. To bad there isn't a way to port that down to FSX.

They already have. It is called Real Environment Extreme (REX). Does a nice job with both water and clouds.

[matthewdev]

I'll gladly say this. The Flight development team definately scored a run with the new water. To bad there isn't a way to port that down to FSX.

Agreed, so far for me that has been it's only saving grace! The coastlines in particular are much better.

[JoBee]

I'll gladly say this. The Flight development team definately scored a run with the new water. To bad there isn't a way to port that down to FSX.

Agreed, so far for me that has been it's only saving grace! The coastlines in particular are much better.

What about the lack of water climbing up the shores, or the lack of streams that defy gravity, or the fact that the landing light actually illuminate objects, not just the ground around them.

How about the fact that in Flight accidentally getting too close to a building , or a taxi sign, has consequences. You can't just drive through them.

What sold me on Flight was tooling along in the Stearman one day I pulled back on the stick and just as she stalled I kicked in the rudder and away she went into a spin. Can't do that in 9 or X with any default planes.

Oh yeah, Flight has legs and she has barely started walking, wait till she runs.

Flight's future is so bright I gotta wear shades.

cheers,
Joe

[BrandonF]

Agreed, Joe. There was a time, one day after the beta started, that I was flying the Stearman around Oahu just as the sun was rising. I was thinking about how all that we didn't think would happen and things even worse than the naysayers expected to happen had indeed happened. The next day, I was flying online with a few friends along the coast of the Big Island near Upolo towards the sun as it was beginning to get low in the sky and I realized that I was actually having fun and enjoying Flight, despite the horrible things we had learned after the January 4th announcement. Since then, my hopes for Flight to be a successful franchise have only gone up. It seems that the team is dedicated to the franchise and anticipate that it has a bright future with many expansions, as hinted by Joshua Howard in a few interviews:

[quote]Howard (Microsoft) said: -

[Camel_Moe]

Unfortunately, has a gamer for almost 30 years, almost as long as I've been a simmer, I can tell you what your seeing from MS/Josh at this point is the standard post release hype strategy, commonly seen with their more popular Xbox games, but not something dedicated simmers, who don't consider themselves gamers, have had much experience with up until flight. MSFS had Hype, but this is a whole new breed of hype. This is genetically altered super hype.
90% of what they'll say is tailored to create inspiration amongst the masses, generate an positive product image, and carefully crafted to froth up the fanbase into opening wallets for DLC. It's like a Winston Churchill speech, and the method works, but overall it's bunk.
It's just that coming out and saying what they really think might not work so well:

"We got this new internet thingy a while back and we've discovered that we can sell you the same amount of content we used to sell to you for an affordable set price, and one that got us a reasonable profit, and now we can sell it to you in pieces for a much higher profit.

[BrandonF]

I give up. This has to be the most negative community I've ever seen. I guess no one is open for change or willing to see at least one positive thing from something new. (I know not everyone here is like this, so this doesn't apply to them)

I am done here.

[andy190]

I give up. This has to be the most negative community I've ever seen. I guess no one is open for change or willing to see at least one positive thing from something new. I am done here.

Brandon, we're telling the truth not being negative.

You can't just storm off because people don't see your point of view.

It's a fact of life that people don't always agree.

I am open for change for the better just not for the worse.

[Steve M]

The emotions and opinions are far too intense. After reading some very well written posts, all I come away with, is this feeling that we shouldn't be divided by a piece of software.

[Flight Ace]

I give up. This has to be the most negative community I've ever seen. I guess no one is open for change or willing to see at least one positive thing from something new. I am done here.

Brandon, we're telling the truth not being negative.

You can't just storm off because people don't see your point of view.

It's a fact of life that people don't always agree.

I am open for change for the better just not for the worse.

Since I started this post, let me add my two cents and I don't want to seem negative.

Some of the questions recently asked the MF Developers were - "What would you say to those third-parties such as Just Flight who are eager to produce extra content in Microsoft Flight? Some will do their own thing instead. Do you welcome the competition?"

In response, this statement was made by one of the MF Developers. "I always do. I

[Scruffyduck]

I stand by to be flamed or trolled but I am beginning to wonder why folks are comparing Flight to FSX.