Are the trees not autogen?

Correction: I would suggest though that this is because Microsoft Flight has not had autogen completely implemented yet. On the other hand, Photoshop is a pretty handy tool for adding trees.Regards, Mike Mann

Looking at Screenshot 1 for both simulators and then looking at Google Maps, it is readily apparent that both FSX and Flight have a problem with housing density! FSX has too much and Flight has way too little (as in none). I would say that in balance, FSX looks much closer to the real world in terms of autogen density in this area. I would suggest though that this is because Microsoft Flight has not had autogen implemented yet.Regards, Mike Mann

Autogen houses are there (ref. screenshot #5 from december), but I agree, there should at least be some houses showing in screenshot #1. FSX is way off so I don't understand how you can say FSX looks closer to the real wrold location? There should be few houses present in january screenshot #1 and december screenshot #5. Looking at the place in Google Earth the area around Princeville airport is mostly farmland. The towns should not be present in the foreground of those screenshots. If you look closely you can barely make out the houses of Princeville in #1 and #5. In #5 you can also see the some houses in the left which is the outskirts of Kilauea.

I can see from the Google Earth shot that FSX is out to lunch. I was only going from the Google Maps Satellite view which seemed to show quite a buildup around Princeville which FSX shows and Flight doesn't. Thanks for posting the Google Earth shot.Maybe as you fly closer to Princeville in Flight the autogen will pop up which would indicate to me that the LOD's are written to achieve higher frame rates. Considering how many people complain about FSX popping up scenery objects, Flight could prove interesting.Regards, Mike

I'm just saying.. Its great and all that flight looks better than the default FSX. But who uses the default FSX? FSX is great because of it addons.Until REX (and pmdg, etc) will support MSflight, why go MSflight?

I'm just saying.. Its great and all that flight looks better than the default FSX. But who uses the default FSX? FSX is great because of it addons.Until REX (and pmdg, etc) will support MSflight, why go MSflight?

Why are you so sure MSFlight won't run REX, PMDG, etc. out of the box? Hasn't Microsoft always had a history of compatibility with at least the previous version? (And when this was not respected by FSX with the props issue, there was quite a bit of complaining, I recall...)Cheers,- jahman.

I'm just saying.. Its great and all that FSX looks better than the default FS9. But who uses the default FS9? FS9 is great because of it addons.Until REX (and pmdg, etc) will support FSX, why go FSX?

It's like deja vu, all over again... :(

It's like deja vu, all over again... :(

Sometime in the near future quote:I'm just saying.. Its great and all that Flight 2 looks better than the default Flight. But who uses the default Flight? Flight is great because of it addons.Until REX (and pmdg, etc) will support Flight 2, why go Flight 2?Regards, Mike Mann

I'm just saying.. Its great and all that flight looks better than the default FSX. But who uses the default FSX? FSX is great because of it addons.Until REX (and pmdg, etc) will support MSflight, why go MSflight?

We will go with Flight because of the many upgrades, tweaks, new features, etc that cannot be achieved in FSX even with add-ons. One major example is tree shadows in Flight. Another is terrain casting shadows on trees. Can you get this in FSX even with add-ons? No. Flight will be modern. FSX and FS2004 are starting to show their age when compared to Flight. We need to upgrade eventually.

Why are you so sure MSFlight won't run REX, PMDG, etc. out of the box? Hasn't Microsoft always had a history of compatibility with at least the previous version? (And when this was not respected by FSX with the props issue, there was quite a bit of complaining, I recall...)Cheers,- jahman.

Flight will use REX but not the same REX you are using in FSX, you'll have to buy a new one (in the marketplace store), can you use REX FS9 with FSX or can you use REX FSX with FS9.... so why do you think you'll be able to use your REX FSX with Flight......put yourself in the REX owner's shoes...what will you do..you already have REX for FSX right so what's the problem? Now if you want to play with Flight ....well.....by the only REX compatible with Flight when available.How does it goes..."You "wanna" play you pay"......

I do have to agree that the SCs at Flight are indeed very impressive, yet I'd really hate to see the same odd-looking chalets and empty-looking terrain mesh in Flight. If MS were to put ORBX and Flight1 out of commission, they'd have to look at current FSX scenery products to have matched these. Especially the part about advanced instrumentation onboard aircraft that will be enough to shed PMDG-class aircraft aside into the Mojave scrapyard. What I would not like to see would be add-on aircraft with even the slightest trace of default aircraft components, like the ones we see in FS9 and FSX, as well as flight models that are limited and rougly rather suited for casual simmers. If they refuse to make these features even after frequently requested, rest assured, I will stick with FSX.Dave.

I don't see any significant improvement in the screenshots between the upcommming FLIGHT and FSX. Generic ground textures seem to be improved slightly. However, when compared to FSX loaded with Megascenery earth, Orbx FLIGHT will not be any better and FSX has been optomized for several years by an intense group of developers.Importantly with the long history of MS FS and Windows products they will be releasing a beta version that the consumer will be testing for years and will take a minimum of 2 service packs over years to become a robust and stable product. Then, at that point MS Flight 2 will be pitched, and the endless cycle begins again.MS commitment to FS was demonstrated by the termination of the entire ACES FS team.If MS did a total REBUILD of the entire sim from the ground up with current 21st century graphics and CPU technology and not just a putting lipstick on a pig as MS has a long standing history of I would be interested.Just my thoughts. BB

I don't see any significant improvement in the screenshots between the upcommming FLIGHT and FSX. Generic ground textures seem to be improved slightly. However, when compared to FSX loaded with Megascenery earth, Orbx FLIGHT will not be any better and FSX has been optomized for several years by an intense group of developers.Importantly with the long history of MS FS and Windows products they will be releasing a beta version that the consumer will be testing for years and will take a minimum of 2 service packs over years to become a robust and stable product. Then, at that point MS Flight 2 will be pitched, and the endless cycle begins again.MS commitment to FS was demonstrated by the termination of the entire ACES FS team.If MS did a total REBUILD of the entire sim from the ground up with current 21st century graphics and CPU technology and not just a putting lipstick on a pig as MS has a long standing history of I would be interested.Just my thoughts. BB

Add-ons are not the focus at all in these comparison shots. I'm comparing default FSX with default Flight to show the many visual improvements done to the engine.

I don't see any significant improvement in the screenshots between the upcommming FLIGHT and FSX. Generic ground textures seem to be improved slightly. However, when compared to FSX loaded with Megascenery earth, Orbx FLIGHT will not be any better and FSX has been optomized for several years by an intense group of developers.Importantly with the long history of MS FS and Windows products they will be releasing a beta version that the consumer will be testing for years and will take a minimum of 2 service packs over years to become a robust and stable product. Then, at that point MS Flight 2 will be pitched, and the endless cycle begins again.MS commitment to FS was demonstrated by the termination of the entire ACES FS team.If MS did a total REBUILD of the entire sim from the ground up with current 21st century graphics and CPU technology and not just a putting lipstick on a pig as MS has a long standing history of I would be interested.Just my thoughts. BB

Dear Paper94For many years people screamed that they will NEVER, ever, abondon FS2000, FS2002 and FS9 with all their glorious add ons. They screamed that each new version did not offer enough to justify an upgrade. Simmers in droves complained that FS2004 was a "re package of FS2002 with some old classic airplanes". FSX was the most controversial and problematic of all FS upgrades. Not only it didn't run well on our super over-clocked computers, it was said to not offer anything but missions which was not worthy of us serious simmers. Despite four years of non stop FSX bashing and all its associated problems, you, like many others upgraded to FSX anyway. Now after owning the most controversial and non performant version of FS , you vow that you will not abandon it unless they offered you more than a "lipstick on a pig". Since I assume your comment about lipstick on a pig comes from your experience with FSX, I wonder why you haven't uninstalled FSX and go back to FS9. The answer is that you and I will not go back to FS9 nor FS2002 because we value the lipstick. We may complain that there are no new good features, but we will refuse to go back to, for example, the lower resolution textures of FS9. I remember when MS removed the moving lights representing car movements at night from FS2000 (I may have the version wrong). Nobody, until then had thought that the moving lights were important, but when it was removed, people including myself really missed it. Year after year, people asked if MS was bringing them back. My point is that we will upgrade for lipstick and I believe you will too. After all you upgraded to (whisper)..gulp.. FSX!

Dear Paper94For many years people screamed that they will NEVER, ever, abondon FS2000, FS2002 and FS9 with all their glorious add ons. They screamed that each new version did not offer enough to justify an upgrade. Simmers in droves complained that FS2004 was a "re package of FS2002 with some old classic airplanes". FSX was the most controversial and problematic of all FS upgrades. Not only it didn't run well on our super over-clocked computers, it was said to not offer anything but missions which was not worthy of us serious simmers. Despite four years of non stop FSX bashing and all its associated problems, you, like many others upgraded to FSX anyway. Now after owning the most controversial and non performant version of FS , you vow that you will not abandon it unless they offered you more than a "lipstick on a pig". Since I assume your comment about lipstick on a pig comes from your experience with FSX, I wonder why you haven't uninstalled FSX and go back to FS9. The answer is that you and I will not go back to FS9 nor FS2002 because we value the lipstick. We may complain that there are no new good features, but we will refuse to go back to, for example, the lower resolution textures of FS9. I remember when MS removed the moving lights representing car movements at night from FS2000 (I may have the version wrong). Nobody, until then had thought that the moving lights were important, but when it was removed, people including myself really missed it. Year after year, people asked if MS was bringing them back. My point is that we will upgrade for lipstick and I believe you will too. After all you upgraded to (whisper)..gulp.. FSX!

I agree 100% with what you said Frank. I remember when I joined this forum back in 2003 it was the same thing then. FS9 came out and people bashed it and swore that they would stay on FS2002 and some even on FS2000. Then naturally as computers got faster and the tweaks became sorted out, most people migrated over to FS9 from FS2002. It's the same story every time a new version comes out, and a lot of people might not even remember because they are fairly new to the hobby.Personally, I think the screens for Flight look pretty damn good and can only imagine what it could look like once the 3PDs like FSDT, FlyTampa, ORBX, and the GEX guys get their hands on it and start developing. Assuming that it ends up looking and running better than what FSX does, I will have no problem ditching all the addons I have spent money on for FSX and move to the next version. However, until 3rd party content becomes available for Flight I have no reason to switch since I have never been one to fly the default planes, but I may still buy it and install it in the mean time just to see what it looks like in person.It's funny that I actually went and reinstalled FS9 about a year and a half to see how it would look and perform on my current rig with all the my addons like GE Pro, Ultimate Terrain, Pablo's sky textures, an assortment of Mega Scenery products, a bunch of FlyTampa, FSDT aiports, etc., and too tell you the truth, I couldn't stand the look of it outside of the confines of an addon airport. Even my beloved PMDG 737, which was my favorite a/c of that time, now looked horrible to me in the VC compared to some of todays offerings. Granted I was able to get FPS above 50 or 60 in pretty much all circumstances, but for me what good are all the FPS in the world going to do if you can't stand the way the sim looks. I can still get a very fluid stutter and blurry free flight in FSX in the VC of the PMDG 747 with 25 FPS and enjoy what to me is much crisper looking ground textures as well as more autogen. Needless to say, I had FS9 uninstalled a few days later.Really in the end it don't matter to me if some people want to remain on FS9 for the next 20 years or beyond. I've had such a good experience with FSX flying my PMDG 747 and LDS 767 all over the world, basically trouble free for going on almost 3 years now (and i'm still on my initial install of FSX) that I can't imagine still running FS9 after I did my 3 day trial run of it. Especially after seeing the screen shot differences HugesMDFlyer posted that showed a comparison between FS9, FSX and Flight taken at the same spot, it really showed FS9's age with those low res ground textures.I'm not without doubt that Flight will probably have a bug or two right out of the box, but like FS9 and FSX a service pack or two will probably be offered to fix some of the issues and then for the majority of users that use it, it will be a great sim. Of course, there will be FSX users who refuse to use it just like how some FS9 users refuse or dont want to use FSX based on performance or amount of money they spent on addons. That's fine, no one is forcing anyone to stop using the sim of thier choice.Then of course there will be the 3PDs, who at some point like PMDG will completely stop developing for FS9 all together and only focus on Flight and FSX, maybe some will even completely stop developing for FSX.I think exciting times are ahead and if MS gets the new sim to perform well right out of the gate, on top of adding better visuals like in the sample screen shots, then I think Flight will be a winner, and maybe for once in a long time, the majority of the community will be on one sim rather that on two. Of course there will be some that say it looks cartoonish and will choose to remain on FS9 until they die, lol.

Sometime in the near future quote:I'm just saying.. Its great and all that Flight 2 looks better than the default Flight. But who uses the default Flight? Flight is great because of it addons.Until REX (and pmdg, etc) will support Flight 2, why go Flight 2?Regards, Mike Mann

Very funny, but maybe you forgot how many years it took before people started using FSX over FS2004.In fact, people are still moaning at PMDG to release FS2004 addons. (7-8 years after its release)