Well I fly often and I don't see haze that way at all. Haze removes the opacity of scenery not blur it. Put another way, scenery gets hidden in haze; not smudged. Also when hazy you can't see so far in the distance as you can see in pic 5. Unless my hardware can't keep up with my FSX set up, I get crisp textures even in hazy conditions. More importantly, when hazy, the autogen trees lose opacity and they do not, so vividly, pop out of a blurred texture as they do in that scene.I am not trying to start an argument here, but TO ME the textures in that pic are not as crisp as say textures from say Orbx FTX or even the other five other pictures. There are two possibilities for the blur that I can think of. Either the hardware is having a hernia rendering the scene or more likely they are, simply, using lower texture setting.I am not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic here or not, but I just realized I am not alone in noticing it. Rayan, on the third reply to the original poster also noted the blurries.

It was intended as a bit of sarcasm, I admit. But I think let's just chill out on the highly critical comments of individual pics which seemingly undermines the whole development. It is, I would think, at least another year until 'Flights' release. If this was Nov 2011 and we saw blurries, then by all means , have a go.

So far all I see in those shots is pretty much what I already have using FEX, GEX, UTX, and other addons. Ain't no 'WOW' factor yet, but as always I'll wait and see

So the pics have just shown you default scenery which you have just admitted is representative of three of the biggest addons for FSX. So as default scenery, thats not a 'wow' factor for you ....? So you are not thinking about the potential beyond default scenery then.

So the pics have just shown you default scenery which you have just admitted is representative of three of the biggest addons for FSX. So as default scenery, thats not a 'wow' factor for you ....? So you are not thinking about the potential beyond default scenery then.

Agreed. If Flight looks like this out of the box, it sure looks a lot better then FSX out of the box. You can't expect Flight to be just as good as FSX + FTX + REX + whatever, unless you want to pay a few hundred dollars for Flight. Having said that: I think those screenshots look just as good as FSX + FTX + REX + whatever... If not better in some places (like some of the trees and specially the cliffs without stretched textures! Those stretched textures spoil a lot of the fun in FSX for me.)All in all it's looking pretty good imho. Indeed imagine what 3rd party developers can do with it... :(

Someone should take a shot of this using GEX/UTX so we can compare.

Someone should take a shot of this using GEX/UTX so we can compare.

I second this. Wish I had one of these add-ons, then I'd do it. If anyone who has GEX/UTX wants to take the screenshot, I can send you the .flt file saved at the same location I took my shot.

I second this. Wish I had one of these add-ons, then I'd do it. If anyone who has GEX/UTX wants to take the screenshot, I can send you the .flt file saved at the same location I took my shot.

I took one with the GEX/UTX combo for you guys to compare. I tried to line it up as much as I could with the Flight one as much as possible. The water class is still a little bad, but gives us a comparision anyways.FSXFlight

Hmm to me it seems like REX makes all the diffrence in that shot. Like someone said before it seems like the Flight has added vector data with the streams, but obviously it's baked in.

I didn't think I'd actually say this, but I much prefer the Flight shot for land and lighting. Water better in FSX with REX

I didn't think I'd actually say this, but I much prefer the Flight shot for land and lighting. Water better in FSX with REX

I have to disagree about the water - I think the REX one looks fake. Way too luminous compared to the sky and land. The Flight version looks more like what you'd actually see IMO.Colin

Hi,These pictures are very nice to me, ground looks like more realistic except one detail : What about rivers and cascades quantity ?... I hope its a local caracteristic and not the same all over montain areas !RegardsEric

I have to disagree about the water - I think the REX one looks fake. Way too luminous compared to the sky and land. The Flight version looks more like what you'd actually see IMO.Colin

Funny, I find that the Flight version doesn't accurately represent the flora you would find in the water, given the fertility of the land. Might be too bright but the color seems a bit more accurate.

Hi,These pictures are very nice to me, ground looks like more realistic except one detail : What about rivers and cascades quantity ?... I hope its a local caracteristic and not the same all over montain areas !RegardsEric

I agree with Eric, the thing that struck me most about the first shot was how distracting the reflecting streams were. Don't get me wrong; I think they're a good idea, but these stand out waaay too much. These would just be little creeks in real life, mostly hidden by vegetation, etc. In shot #5, they look like big, fat rivers running vertically down the sides of the distant mountains. My advise to the MS Flight developers would be to make the stream texture more narrow, and possibly intersperse the alpha channel with small areas of opacity to simulate vegetation cover, rocks in the stream, etc. In their present form, I wouldn't be really happy with MSF until someone made a third party stream patch.I do, however, really like the new cliff textures. It looks like the shore textures are much improved as well, and I'm not seeing any of the big, ugly FS2002 style wave effects that have been kept for the past 2 versions.One thing that I'd really like to see in MSF is the type of realistic lighting that's being implemented in X-Plane 10:http://www.x-plane.com/images/v10/scenery/week3/airport_night.jpghttp://www.x-plane.com/images/v10/scenery/week3/airport_with_fuel_depot_night.jpghttp://www.x-plane.com/images/v10/scenery/week3/night2.jpgIf you can do this, I'm sold!-Scott

One thing that I'd really like to see in MSF is the type of realistic lighting that's being implemented in X-Plane 10:http://www.x-plane.com/images/v10/scenery/week3/airport_night.jpghttp://www.x-plane.com/images/v10/scenery/week3/airport_with_fuel_depot_night.jpghttp://www.x-plane.com/images/v10/scenery/week3/night2.jpgIf you can do this, I'm sold!-Scott

Those night shots are awesome. There's another night shot you didn't post where it shows the airports lights reflecting into the water. I can t find the link, but I am sure you've seen the one I am talking about. Hopefully we can get something similar in Flight.I also like the improvement in the textures on the cliff as well as the water. Although I think the FSX water looks fine, its just that the waterclass is really off in many parts of the world and gets depicted as that bright blue tropical water texture. While its easy to fix yourself by modifing the WC, it would be nice if they can get it a little closer in the next version.

There's another night shot you didn't post where it shows the airports lights reflecting into the water. I can t find the link, but I am sure you've seen the one I am talking about.

This one?: http://www.x-plane.com/images/v10/scenery/week3/night.jpgI think that version 10 of X-Plane is finally going to give MS Flight a real run for it's money. This is a good thing though; hopefully it'll add that element of competition that will make Flight even better.Before my last post I hadn't read the updated MS Flight news page with its great Q&A (see the Avsim thread about it here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/320515-news-page-updated/) It looks like these shots are very early development; much earlier than the first released FSX development shots were. I'm sure that there are still lots of improvements to be made!cmpbellsjc, judging by your screen name it looks like you're from Campbell or San Jose? I just moved down to the south bay a few months ago, got a job flying aerial photography out of Reid Hillview airport. It's a great area to live!-Scott

This one?: http://www.x-plane.com/images/v10/scenery/week3/night.jpgI think that version 10 of X-Plane is finally going to give MS Flight a real run for it's money. This is a good thing though; hopefully it'll add that element of competition that will make Flight even better.Before my last post I hadn't read the updated MS Flight news page with its great Q&A (see the Avsim thread about it here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/320515-news-page-updated/) It looks like these shots are very early development; much earlier than the first released FSX development shots were. I'm sure that there are still lots of improvements to be made!cmpbellsjc, judging by your screen name it looks like you're from Campbell or San Jose? I just moved down to the south bay a few months ago, got a job flying aerial photography out of Reid Hillview airport. It's a great area to live!-Scott

Yep, that's the pic alright. I remember the first time I saw it I almost thought it was a real photo and not from a sim. That's probably one of the best screen shots I have ever seen from any computer flight sim.If Flight is anywhere close to looking like that at night and they fix up the clouds, visability issues, and overall atmospheric look with volumetric cloud and better precip effects, I will be more than satisfied.BTW, no I am not from Campbell or San Jose. Its just an abbreviation of my last name with my initials, first, middle and last. Good guess though, someone else once asked me that either here or on another FS forum.