Last night I had another great experience using FSX. This morning I took another look at the latest video from the Microsoft Flight Team. Frankly, I don't see any difference between what I was using last night and what I see in that video. I was hoping, giving the long time interval between this release and FSX, that something truly new and reinvented would emerge. Maybe it will, but the video doesn't show it. Now, compare that, for example with the difference between Battlefield 2 (in the EA/Dice franchise) and the upcoming Battlefield 3. By moving to the Frostbite 2 engine, the game will be a quantum leap forward in terms of visual immersion over the previous version. That is what I was hoping to see in the next version of Flight Simulator. I know I'm not sharing anything thing new here, but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

I had the exact same reacton when first I saw the different "webisodes" for Flight! But then I examined them closer and noticed quite alot of improvements.

• Flight! sports a new water/wave model which looks very realistic (would like to see if FSX's silly "star reflection" problem is resolved though).
• Mountains, cliffs and steep slopes now looks realstic (in FSX textures gets stretched and looks very unrealistic).
• Clouds look much better in Flight!
• Lighting, shadows and related aspects is much improved in Flight! For example: You can see how nearby vegetation cast shadows on the airplane in webisode #2. The same can be seen in webisode #3. Also, shadows are sotfer and mucg more realistic and they are now fully rendered inside the VC which is something I'm missing in FSX (the experimental ones we see in FSX "DX10 preview" doesn't look very good).
• I haven't seen evidence thereof but cloud shadows should be fully implemented considering how the new lighting model works (see above).
• Overall coloration is much better in Flight!

Also, Microsoft has pointed out several times that what we see now is from very early in the development process. Check out this post for a FSX/Flight! screen shot comparison. The FSX screens seems to be out of the box (not improved by REX, ORBX or any other add on) but, then again, so are the Flight! screenies.Over all, assuming MS don't compromise on realism, I very much look forward to Flight!Jonas

please correct me if i am wrong here but- when FSX was in the pre release stage, i remember seeing the picture of the mountain and waves and of course we all know that FSX did not produce that but MS never released any video of the pre release stuff did they?The reason i ask is because at least MS is showing you what it really looks like as opposed to what they hope it will look like. Sure they have not really shown anything mind blowing yet - I really want to see some cityscapes or at least one big airport in a video soon - but you can see how it looks in full motion versus a picture of what they want it to look like. I am optimistic about Flight, i may not jump on board the day it is released but I am looking forward to having MS fix some of the mistakes they made with FSX.Kyle

We'll see once it comes out.Even if the graphics stay exactly the same, only on approach to Heathrow with an add-on airport, full 100% AI traffic and PMDG aircraft, the FPS stay at around 50 with a non-overclocked Core i7980X that would be worth it alone.Not to mention if they fix the weather engine. Non shifty winds and smooth weather transitions. I haven't flown in FSX in about 6 months because I got so sick of screwing with settings trying to get ASE to depict proper weather. Weather is my #1 priority when it comes to MS Flight. Everything else can stay as it is in FSX as far as I'm concerned because as much as I like pretty airports it's not as important as proper weather which actually affects my flying.(not to mention all the hype and excitement over the NGX went from being excited about it, then all these updates to a bunch of time dragging, now I just don't care anymore.)Granted if they decide to make it more life-like, then so much the better.I'm not judging it until it comes out. Anyone being overly optimistic or over pessimistic is wasting their nerves.

Hear hear. Support for SLI and proper multicore would already be enough as far as I'm concerned. Those two should already boost performance far beyond that of FS9 and FSX. Right now most of my CPU cycles and GPU power wasted. I don't need improvements in graphics, I do crave improvements in performance. This thing in my sig can run Crysis at 60fps @ 1080p, damn it, I want the same performance in Flight! ;)

OP here,Don't get me wrong, my intention here is not to bash Flight!. I'm simply saying that I was hoping for a significantly different visual experience given the latest graphics engines.I can't believe that a simulator that looks and behaves essentially the same as FSX but runs a lot smoother is enough to get excited about. Or one that is essentially the same but has an improved weather engine. If you look at some of the latest PC game releases you can start to imagine what might be possible here. Lighting, atmospherics, enhanced physics, etc. Perhaps, Flight! will deliver. All I'm saying is nothing has been said (or shown) yet that would indicate that kind of significant leap forward.

OP here,Don't get me wrong, my intention here is not to bash Flight!. I'm simply saying that I was hoping for a significantly different visual experience given the latest graphics engines.I can't believe that a simulator that looks and behaves essentially the same as FSX but runs a lot smoother is enough to get excited about. Or one that is essentially the same but has an improved weather engine. If you look at some of the latest PC game releases you can start to imagine what might be possible here. Lighting, atmospherics, enhanced physics, etc. Perhaps, Flight! will deliver. All I'm saying is nothing has been said (or shown) yet that would indicate that kind of significant leap forward.

Yeah, after seeing the videos progress, I am not so sure about the sim now. I realize it is very early but it seems "ho-hum" to me. I have always been an MSFS fan but I look at some of the stuff Austin is doing for x-plane10 and wonder if MS is going to step it up at least a little.

Same engine reworked, you can't make something new with something old, MS can't make Fight to good....what will be left to enhance for the dev....lol.I am sure Flight will look better and run better...online, offline also but not as much.

Even if the graphics stay exactly the same, only on approach to Heathrow with an add-on airport, full 100% AI traffic and PMDG aircraft, the FPS stay at around 50 with a non-overclocked Core i7980X that would be worth it alone.

Why do you need 50 fps?

Why do you need 50 fps?

60fps is the standard that the big boys use. This is the magic number that provides the smoothest framerates. :) anything less than 45fps to me is useless.

60fps is the standard that the big boys use.  This is the magic number that provides the smoothest framerates. :) anything less than 45fps to me is useless.

Seriously, who are the BIG boys?

They're making new with old... it can't works ! :(

Seriously, who are the BIG boys?

Here scroll down a little.... I think the Guru of 3D qualify as big boys....http://www.guru3d.com/article/his-radeon-hd-6970-turbo-2gb-review/10

I had the exact same reacton when first I saw the different "webisodes" for Flight! But then I examined them closer and noticed quite alot of improvements.

• Flight! sports a new water/wave model which looks very realistic (would like to see if FSX's silly "star reflection" problem is resolved though).
• Mountains, cliffs and steep slopes now looks realstic (in FSX textures gets stretched and looks very unrealistic).
• Clouds look much better in Flight!
• Lighting, shadows and related aspects is much improved in Flight! For example: You can see how nearby vegetation cast shadows on the airplane in webisode #2. The same can be seen in webisode #3. Also, shadows are sotfer and mucg more realistic and they are now fully rendered inside the VC which is something I'm missing in FSX (the experimental ones we see in FSX "DX10 preview" doesn't look very good).
• I haven't seen evidence thereof but cloud shadows should be fully implemented considering how the new lighting model works (see above).
• Overall coloration is much better in Flight!

Also, Microsoft has pointed out several times that what we see now is from very early in the development process. Check out this post for a FSX/Flight! screen shot comparison. The FSX screens seems to be out of the box (not improved by REX, ORBX or any other add on) but, then again, so are the Flight! screenies.Over all, assuming MS don't compromise on realism, I very much look forward to Flight!Jonas

I don't see any waves ?

60fps is the standard that the big boys use. This is the magic number that provides the smoothest framerates. :) anything less than 45fps to me is useless.

I think you may be placing too much emphasis on FPS equaling Quality.Perhaps it is better to regard FPS as a measure of how much room you have to absorb the "heavy lifting" for highly detailed scenery or weather systems or very rapid manoeuvering of the aircraft or perhaps the higher resolutions that will be needed with bigger monitors.By itself, FPS tells lttle of the quality you are experiencing at the moment- assuming of course, that the rate is (and remains above) the persistency of vision.Here is an explanation-I display 3 separate views FL,F,FR on triple monitors. The angles of the outer views are precisely adjusted to take into account MY specific bezels so that the pilot sees what seems to be a single very wide picture.In setting up a flight, I delete the outer views so that only View FWD is being computed by the CPU.Then I adjust FS settings to produce a steady 30-50 FPS in flight.Now when I open the two outer views, the FPS drops to about half- in the 15- 25 range. The "quality" doesn't change- it is just as smooth as at the higher number. The very substantial change in displayed frame rate tells nothing about QUALITY. BUT the spare capacity to handle overloads IS sacrificed at lower frame rates.This phenomenon seemed so illogical that I devised the following test-Flying along steadily at low altitude to get ample scenery displaying, I suddenly delete the outer views. That's DELETE- not just switching OFF the power to those monitors.Frame rate will jump- approximately doubling- BUT the image QUALITY & SMOOTHNESS remains the same!!!This so surprised me at first that I have repeated the test many times!(A quirk here, is that you can fly SMOOTHLY down to about 7 FPS although nearby objects such as runway lights flashing by wingtips will have a "chatter".--------So Frame Rate does not really tell much about QUALITY- but it sure is nice to have a cushion to cope with the high density scenery coming up at the next airport!AR