Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
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
Guest jahman

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... :(

Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

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.

Brandon Filer

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

Brandon Filer

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.

Brandon Filer

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.

Brandon Filer

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
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...