Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

demiboyx

The First Trailer

Recommended Posts

I was browsing the internet when I came across this, it seems that the first trailer wasn't actually from the game at all, but the first webisode isn't mentioned on the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Interesting... Says "Ocean tools developed for Pirates of the Caribbean were in use again on this project".Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
I was browsing the internet when I came across this, it seems that the first trailer wasn't actually from the game at all, but the first webisode isn't mentioned on the site.
Interesting link! Of course, nearly everyone already knew that the first teaser wasn't "in sim," but it's good to have absolute confirmation... :(

Share this post


Link to post

demiboyx - nice find. It's great to have the definitive proof like this.

Share this post


Link to post
I was browsing the internet when I came across this, it seems that the first trailer wasn't actually from the game at all, but the first webisode isn't mentioned on the site.
I'm a little taken aback by the fact you seem so surprised it's not in game footage - not seen the flight website? Webisode 1 includes part video part 'in game' rendered footage, no real need for an animation studio.The link is a good find though so thanks! and its the first time I've seen that video run smoothly as well! Cheers,Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm a little taken aback by the fact you seem so surprised it's not in game footage - not seen the flight website? Webisode 1 includes part video part 'in game' rendered footage, no real need for an animation studio.The link is a good find though so thanks! and its the first time I've seen that video run smoothly as well! Cheers,Dave.
Actually, webisode 1 was a complete render.

Share this post


Link to post

OMG, when i was a child... didn't i get fooled with a Photoshopped image of what FSX would going to be? :( Luckily they showed us ingame video's also this time :( They learned.

Share this post


Link to post

What a shame, what else is not the real deal....can you tell what's real and what's not in the other webisode, so beautifull but is it fake??? ......remember this http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1008972/microsoft-flight-simulator-developers-images-paint-misleading-pictureSure.... you will always have guys defending Flight hoping for something magical, can we blame them after seeing how FSX run perf. wise....How does it goes, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...... more and more like SP3.

Share this post


Link to post
How does it goes, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...... more and more like SP3.
Stop calling it SP3! SP3 does not exist. There is no SP3. It does not look like SP3. It does not feel like SP3. It will not be SP3. Get over it. Microsoft screwed up 4 years ago. 4 Years! that's a lot in the computer industry. They saw their mistakes, obviously, and they are not going to make those same ones. Notice how they are so focused on performance with Flight. Yeah, does that tell you something? It should!SP3=No....Flight v1.0 = Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, webisode 1 was a complete render.
Hi Brandon, I guess it depends on what you mean by a complete render. Now that I've checked I think you could be right but have a look at this image, the first part shows what looks like Flight's Stearman overlayed on a video of god rays through some clouds. Now that I've taken the screenshot you can clearly see the god ray visible on the wing of the plane, clearly not in game footage....However the second part of the video the clouds completely change characteristics, the Stearman initially disapears from view, and it looks like the tree's could have been taken from FSX. There is definately a different process making the second part of the video to the first part and therefore not one complete render - at least not from the same 3d space anyway. Like I said before it depends on what you mean by complete rendering, but may be you could agree the second part is created from a different source, and that source could be an early build of Flight? :( Cheers,Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Stop calling it SP3! SP3 does not exist. There is no SP3. It does not look like SP3. It does not feel like SP3. It will not be SP3. Get over it. Microsoft screwed up 4 years ago. 4 Years! that's a lot in the computer industry. They saw their mistakes, obviously, and they are not going to make those same ones. Notice how they are so focused on performance with Flight. Yeah, does that tell you something? It should!SP3=No....Flight v1.0 = Yes
LOL man....calm down a little, they have learned from their mistake you said?.......did you see the link I posted?.... and they released the first webisode showing something that was not actualy in the game like the DX10 pic., they have learned alright.Now unless you can show me some real proof that MS did start from scratch building Flight (something we all saw is not) I will call any kind of enhancement from the same FSX engine (performance wise or else) SP3. Their mistake was to not collect anything $$$ after the released of FSX, that's why if you want everything Flight can offer after it's release you'll need to go online, if not you'll get a barebone Flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Brandon, I guess it depends on what you mean by a complete render. Now that I've checked I think you could be right but have a look at this image, the first part shows what looks like Flight's Stearman overlayed on a video of god rays through some clouds. Now that I've taken the screenshot you can clearly see the god ray visible on the wing of the plane, clearly not in game footage....However the second part of the video the clouds completely change characteristics, the Stearman initially disapears from view, and it looks like the tree's could have been taken from FSX. There is definately a different process making the second part of the video to the first part and therefore not one complete render - at least not from the same 3d space anyway. Like I said before it depends on what you mean by complete rendering, but may be you could agree the second part is created from a different source, and that source could be an early build of Flight? :( Cheers,Dave.
It is really hard to tell. The clouds are too good compared to what we've seen in the screenshots, so the sky isn't In game. The plane is most likely not in game. The trees look to detailed to be in game. I hate to say it, but I'm thinking that nothing in that video was from Flight. On the bright side, we have two webisodes and 10 screenshots obviously in game.

Share this post


Link to post
LOL man....come down a little, they have learned from their mistake you said?.......did you see the link I posted?.... and they released the first webisode showing something that was not actualy in the game like the DX10 pic., they have learned alright.Now unless you can show me some real proof that MS did start from scratch building Flight (something we all saw is not) I will call any kind of enhancement from the same FSX engine (performance wise or else) SP3. Their mistake was to not collect anything $$$ after the released of FSX, that's why if you want all Flight can offer you'll need to online, if not you'll get a bare bone Flight.
Trigger And that's what I've done. Maintained it for 20 years. This old brooms had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.Sid How the hell can it be the same bloody broom then?Trigger Theres the picture. What more proof do you need? Trigger,Peckham

Share this post


Link to post
LOL man....come down a little, they have learned from their mistake you said?.......did you see the link I posted?.... and they released the first webisode showing something that was not actualy in the game like the DX10 pic., they have learned alright.Now unless you can show me some real proof that MS did start from scratch building Flight (something we all saw is not) I will call any kind of enhancement from the same FSX engine (performance wise or else) SP3. Their mistake was to not collect anything $ after the released of FSX, that's why if you want all Flight can offer you'll need to online, if not you'll get a bare bone Flight.
From what I've seen/heard, it is common for companies to release rendered trailers rather than in game footage. In this case, if they are trying to get the word out, Microsoft released a rendered trailer that looks stunning. It's not meant to show the final product, just to show how cool flying is.And you might as well call FSX "FS98 SP5." :( All of the FS versions have pretty much been an upgrade to the engine. The final build would not be considered a SP, as it is meant to replace, not repair. A service pack is not the entire game. Flight is an entire game, therefor it makes no sense to call it FSX SP3.The FSX engine is very good, technically speaking. It was just a rushed upgrade and ACES was not allowed to change/rebuild enough of the engine to actually make it function right. With Flight, it seems that the team is more open to do what they want than with FSX. (they are still limited, but you get the idea)Visuals should not be the main concern. Performance is and should be. If it doesn't perform well, you can't enjoy the visuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Trigger And that's what I've done. Maintained it for 20 years. This old brooms had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.Sid How the hell can it be the same bloody broom then?Trigger Theres the picture. What more proof do you need? Trigger,Peckham
I rebuilt an old 1968 Camaro SS once, you should have seen that poor thing I saved from the junk yard......that was bad......I did a complete restoration on it, I mean frame off, put better break on it, tweaked the engine, added more chrome on it +++, that thing ran and looked better that the day it left the dealership.....still, I sold it as a 1968 Camaro SS.
The FSX engine is very good, technically speaking. It was just a rushed upgrade and ACES was not allowed to change/rebuild enough of the engine to actually make it function right. With Flight, it seems that the team is more open to do what they want than with FSX. (they are still limited, but you get the idea)Visuals should not be the main concern. Performance is and should be. If it doesn't perform well, you can't enjoy the visuals.
Fair enough, let's wait and see more of the in game.

Share this post


Link to post

I would say that 80-90% of early game trailers or "teasers" are pre-rendered. Its a standard practice in the game idustry for many reasons. First, many times the in-game assets are not done yet. Second, they need to get the potential audiance pumped up about the game! Thirt, sometimes the rendered trailers are visual targets more then marketing. Its not a scam or anyone trying to pull the whool over your eyes unless its stated that its in-game video. Take for example this teaser.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v8mXJI_oJMg100% pre-rendered. Doesent show gameplay, doesent show much really. Seem familure? Its like going to a book store and picking up book based off its cover artwork, and then getting upset when its nothing but text on the inside. :(

Share this post


Link to post

20 Years ago we'd have Commodore 64 games and the boxes would always show the Amiga version with the higher resolution and color range instead. Talk about deceiving.

Share this post


Link to post
I was browsing the internet when I came across this, it seems that the first trailer wasn't actually from the game at all, but the first webisode isn't mentioned on the site.
Herein lies the problem for MS. The now infamous "God's Rays" renderings was certified by MS to be a depiction of DX10 in-game capabilities...we know that was an outright lie. The 1st Flight trailer looks like the "God's Rays" footage and one is left to wonder if they finally got DX10 up and running at that level as previously promised. The difference between FS and other games with rendered footage is that their manufacturers NEVER made the mistake of confusing the two. If you look at the most popular MMORPG, World of Warcraft, the rendered battle footage used for advertising looks nothing like the in-game footage, but no one ever confuses the two. Why? Because Blizzard Entertainment was never stupid enough to say that visuals similar to the rendered footage was possible in-game therefore no one is expecting it to be.MS announces "Flight" and all that is released is an obscure video with stunning footage. To make matters worse, if you check out some screenshots from FSX, indeed some shots are so photorealistic and crisp that they really do look real so there is going to be some confusion as to what is possible and what is not. Microsoft screwed the pooch with the "God's Rays" screenshot and they really need to make CLEAR what is rendered and what is not. Of course we knew for some time that the first trailers were rendered but the fact that we are having this discussion makes it clear to me that mixing rendred footage with in-game footage was NOT the way to go.As to another comment that Flight is nothing but FSX SP3. Well...is Windows 7 just Windows NT SP6? I guess you can argue that they are based on the same NT kernel (engine) but that would be a poor argument because the intrinsic technologies differ vastly and there is almost no compatibility between the two. Windows 7 is NOT a SP for Windows NT OR Windows VISTA, it is it's own product period. Likewise, Flight will UNDOUBTEDLY be based on an FSX engine, however I higly doubt that it will just be FSX with some lipstick applied. MS Flight will be no more FSX SP3 than FSX is FS9 SP3.

Share this post


Link to post
As to another comment that Flight is nothing but FSX SP3. Well...is Windows 7 just Windows NT SP6? I guess you can argue that they are based on the same NT kernel (engine) but that would be a poor argument because the intrinsic technologies differ vastly and there is almost no compatibility between the two. Windows 7 is NOT a SP for Windows NT OR Windows VISTA, it is it's own product period. Likewise, Flight will UNDOUBTEDLY be based on an FSX engine, however I higly doubt that it will just be FSX with some lipstick applied. MS Flight will be no more FSX SP3 than FSX is FS9 SP3.
Listen, MS decided to call what they are working on right now "Flight", no problem for me, they are saying (or make us belive) that this will be a brand new product so I guess they needed a brand new name to go with it and again I don't have a problem with that at all, all I'm saying is this, I can take an old 1931 Ford model A and make a beautiful hot road out of it, chop the top off, drop a plain old chevy 350 in it, use a 46" wide Super Bell axel and more, the bottom line is that it will still be a 1931 Ford model A reworked no matter what I do with it or how good it will run....now....I don't care how you want to slice it or dice it but unless MS start with something brand new from the beginning (engine included) it's and it will be to me FSX reworked called Flight, so far I'm seeing some of the same old stuff from FSX in Flight.Flight will not be just FSX with some lipstick applied on it I'm pretty sure of that but if you think you will have all the bells and whistles like today's games (crysis just to take this one) including high res. and be able to play it on a mid. range PC with everything maxed out ...well....good luck. Crysis can't be played maxed out with the best of today's hardware without problems and it's not a 10 years old game, and to see what ever big improvements MS will include in Flight compare to FSX you'll have to go online to enjoy it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Listen, MS decided to call what they are working on right now "Flight", no problem for me, they are saying (or make us belive) that this will be a brand new product so I guess they needed a brand new name to go with it and again I don't have a problem with that at all, all I'm saying is this, I can take an old 1931 Ford model A and make a beautiful hot road out of it, chop the top off, drop a plain old chevy 350 in it, use a 46" wide Super Bell axel and more, the bottom line is that it will still be a 1931 Ford model A reworked no matter what I do with it or how good it will run....now....I don't care how you want to slice it or dice it but unless MS start with something brand new from the beginning (engine included) it's and it will be to me FSX reworked called Flight, so far I'm seeing some of the same old stuff from FSX in Flight.Flight will not be just FSX with some lipstick applied on it I'm pretty sure of that but if you think you will have all the bells and whistles like today's games (crysis just to take this one) including high res. and be able to play it on a mid. range PC with everything maxed out ...well....good luck. Crysis can't be played maxed out with the best of today's hardware without problems and it's not a 10 years old game, and to see what ever big improvements MS will include in Flight compare to FSX you'll have to go online to enjoy it all.
Where your logic fails is in the case of a 1931 Ford, you can CUSTOMIZE it and it is a 1931 Ford. Software doesn't work that way. If I take Windows NT, slap a Windows 7 Vista skin on it, it is still Windows NT. If I BASE my software on top of the old NT Kernel and call it Windows 7 then it is no longer Windows NT because it is effectively a different operating system. If we use your logic a house that is demolished but keeps the old foundation but then is totally rebuilt is just version 2 of the same house which, of course, is wrong. Making legacy engineering analogies doesn't translate well to information technology. What you are assuming is that Flight is just a better version FSX rather than a NEW sim BASED on the FSX engine. Since neither of us know for sure, the argument is moot for now. You may well be right, and you may well be wrong, however, we'll both have to wait and see.Right now we have only screenshots to go by. Am I impressed? Not really because to me it looks like FSX with addons for scenery, weather and bloom effects...so I get your point. As to your other point, I don't see any of the bells and whistles of today's cutting edge software either but again, we'll just have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post

I used to work in an idustry where by law 'Anything I had written, said, or shown' had to be factual. It was that clear cut, with no deviation. If a customer felt that what I had mis-represented the commodity I had sold them then at worse I could be sued for mis-representing the product. As far as I am concerned, we see a plane flying across the sea with the headline 'Microsoft Flight' Perhaps, I am being naive thinking this was the real deal, but why shouldn't I ? Personally, I feel a little mis-led. Anyway, whatever happens, I am definately going to buy Flight.

Share this post


Link to post
As to another comment that Flight is nothing but FSX SP3. Well...is Windows 7 just Windows NT SP6? I guess you can argue that they are based on the same NT kernel (engine) but that would be a poor argument because the intrinsic technologies differ vastly and there is almost no compatibility between the two. Windows 7 is NOT a SP for Windows NT OR Windows VISTA, it is it's own product period. Likewise, Flight will UNDOUBTEDLY be based on an FSX engine, however I higly doubt that it will just be FSX with some lipstick applied. MS Flight will be no more FSX SP3 than FSX is FS9 SP3.
Flight is it's own product. You don't seem to understand what a service pack is. I suggest you read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_pack

Share this post


Link to post

Lets look at this from MS and the dev. side of the business....So let say Aces never closed...ok so from there one can assume that Aces would still be working on a SP for FSX right..... like finishing DX10, tweaking it so we would be able to use as mamy core as we can get in our rig, been able to use SLI and more.....but why will they do that without making any money, just because MS is a nice company after giving us two SP already? That does not make senses right? Now let say that after Aces closed a bunch of dev. and MS got together and talked about the possibility of doing some business together.....like you scratch my back and I scratch yours....why...because we all know that if Aces stay closed who ever can introduce us a new sim. as flawless as possible (maybe X-plane 10) will take over the market by having us as customers and kill the addons market for FSX, not right away but on the long run. Back to the day that MS reopened Aces and let say that MS did that with something in mind....like making money....but how.....by fixing what ever was not working properly in FSX and taking advantage of it by repackaging it, naming it Flight, opening it to a wider range of sustomers (moms and dads) and making money with it by having us going online to have access to all the fixes, futher more, they will also make money by hosting what ever the dev. will be selling in their market store, scenery at $32.99 and MS keep a % of the sale.Now everybody is happy, MS is making money, we have something new to play with and the dev. keep their business alive by making more money been under MS's umbrella.That's how I see it, I may be very wrong and I may well be off my rockers but from a business point of view I think this make sense.

Share this post


Link to post

Flight is the new Client based on a modified FSX Server/engine.. it's as simple as that... there is no speculation required we have the screenshots to prove it. You think Lockheed would have spent all that money if it wasn't going to be stable and usable for many years to come, or if it wasn't a good foundation to build on? Bottom line is FSX is the first of a generation not an end to one.

Share this post


Link to post