I'm missing the macro-autogen on the foreground of pic 2, like grass, flowers and small rocks :( The rest is looking good !

I'd love to see improvement to winter season. Right now it almost doesn't make sense, snow textures are connected to date, not temperature and precipitation.

Yes, and I'd also like to see scattered snow instead of the uniform coverage.

Looks pretty good and it's a nice teaser, but as others have pointed out, until you see it running on your machine, don't read too much into it.I, however, am cautiously optimistic on Flight, if anything because X-Plane has put out some really nice looking screen shots for their upcoming next version.And good competition will force MS to go the extra mile in delivering a quality product.

For anyone who doesn't think Flight looks much better than FSX, here is a comparison to prove you wrong. The FSX shot was taken with terrain settings maxed out. If you open each screenshot in a new tab and flip back and fourth between them, you'll see that different parts of them almost match up. (I did my best at lining up the FSX shot)

For anyone who doesn't think Flight looks much better than FSX, here is a comparison to prove you wrong.

Looks like an improvement to me...More natural contours (specially steep cliff walls), small streams, better lighting, improved ground textures/coloring, better water, vegetation fits in better and just an overall more "natural" feel.FSX looks rather game-y placed right next to that shot in fact. I'm not sure what differences people aren't seeing? Mesh? Big deal. Accurate mesh is accurate mesh even if its FS2002. Even that being said, Flight has more small details in it's mesh.Edit: Misread your sentence. We agree fully :(

For anyone who doesn't think Flight looks much better than FSX, here is a comparison to prove you wrong. The FSX shot was taken with terrain settings maxed out. If you open each screenshot in a new tab and flip back and fourth between them, you'll see that different parts of them almost match up. (I did my best at lining up the FSX shot)

Notice the shadow comming from the cliff ????

For anyone who doesn't think Flight looks much better than FSX, here is a comparison to prove you wrong. The FSX shot was taken with terrain settings maxed out. If you open each screenshot in a new tab and flip back and fourth between them, you'll see that different parts of them almost match up. (I did my best at lining up the FSX shot)

How did you ever find that location?

Looks like an improvement to me...More natural contours (specially steep cliff walls), small streams, better lighting, improved ground textures/coloring, better water, vegetation fits in better and just an overall more "natural" feel.FSX looks rather game-y placed right next to that shot in fact. I'm not sure what differences people aren't seeing? Mesh? Big deal. Accurate mesh is accurate mesh even if its FS2002. Even that being said, Flight has more small details in it's mesh.Edit: Misread your sentence. We agree fully :(

I agree fully as well.

Notice the shadow comming from the cliff ????

Yes, but I couldn't get it to match in my comparison shot. Too much work.

How did you ever find that location?

Well, I knew that webisode 2 was taken at Hilo Intl, so I decided to look around the island using slew mode and was able to find out that those screenshots were taken around the same location, so I did a little comparing. :(

It looks fantastic to me you guys need to check out your eye sight lol the shadows look great everything looking awesome. the water is darker softer looking.

Notice the shadow comming from the cliff ????

Are those cloud shadows on the other side of the valley?

Better water? Looks like it, though some may miss the turquoise color of default FSX?Better vector data? You see a lot more streams coming down the slopes. This side of The Big Island gets a lot of rain and has a lot of streams!Better autogen? It sure seems so. Notice the fade that will hopefully make it's way back into Flight, rather than the FSX-FPS eater of showing full autogen once you get into the rendering range. What a nice boost in performance that will be!Better go get my Christmas Stocking hung over the fireplace, in the hopes Santa will make all my dreams come true. Which includes... NON-FLATTENED airports. Don't be a Scrooge, Microsoft! Flat airports are so... FS2002! :(

They may use temporary artwork from previous generation, while working on new features. Does anybody noticed nice shorelines on the water?

-- rasing hand! ---me! me! I noticed! :( There are appearing to be a lot of little differences that look to be bringing a more natural feel. I do think they just look a step above FSX, but that is not a bad thing. What I'm hoping is that this is even a small step above FSX with a modern engine. I think the engine of FSX was in need of an overhaul.Flight is moving on the right heading, so far. :(

What I'm hoping is that this is even a small step above FSX with a modern engine. I think the engine of FSX was in need of an overhaul.

I agree, and it appears they did bring it to today's standards, but Phil Taylor did say that FSX was a modernization of the old code, so it was already modern. They just topped it off with Flight.

Those screens look quite impressive. They seem to have improved every aspect of ground representation like mesh (the mountain-tops in particular look very nice), shorelines, ground textures. I also like the realistic looking forest and the small streams. Hopefully the break with past FS versions will allow them to optimise the code, so that we can actually run all this.I for one would like to see a major airfield next.Here's to hoping!

For anyone who doesn't think Flight looks much better than FSX, here is a comparison to prove you wrong. [images removed]The FSX shot was taken with terrain settings maxed out. If you open each screenshot in a new tab and flip back and fourth between them, you'll see that different parts of them almost match up. (I did my best at lining up the FSX shot)

Great shots! I really like the direction Flight is moving.