The First Trailer

[Gibbage 199]

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. :(

[Guest veeray]

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.

[Mike T 208]

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.

[alainneedle1 97]

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.

[Mike T 208]

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.

[alainneedle1 97]

Fair enough Mike., assuming MS is not customizing FSX.

[speedbird2001 0]

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.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

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

[alainneedle1 97]

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.

[Guest veeray]

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.

[Mike T 208]

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

Is english not your first language? I know what a service pack is and I know what it isn't. My post EXPLAINS to the OP that it is NOT a service pack. Please re-read my post if you are still confused.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Is english not your first language? I know what a service pack is and I know what it isn't. My post EXPLAINS to the OP that it is NOT a service pack. Please re-read my post if you are still confused.

OK, I'm slow today. I read it again. And regarding an earlier post you made about Flight looking like FSX with add-ons:Yes, it does look like that at a glance. But, considering the tree shadows on the ground and plane, terrain casting shadows on the trees, the soft building shadows, the higher resolution ground and coast line textures, and the improved terrain mesh, it is not looking so much like FSX. From the looks of it, the terrain and ground texture resolution of Flight cannot be met by FSX. Lets hope!PS: English is my only language and I know it well. :(

[mmann 72]

But, considering the tree shadows on the ground and plane, terrain casting shadows on the trees, the soft building shadows, the higher resolution ground and coast line textures, and the improved terrain mesh, it is not looking so much like FSX. From the looks of it, the terrain and ground texture resolution of Flight cannot be met by FSX.

The question is: can what we see be met by Flight or will it only exist on videos with the aid of post production enhancements.Regards, Mike Mann

[alainneedle1 97]

The other question can also be, "Can everything we see in Flight be achieved by reparing what ever is wrong in FSX, fixing it real good and adding some new stuff to it?"Lets forget about SP or the name given to this new release, is it possible I mean seriously.... is it possible to fix what ever is wrong with what we already have and make it look like what we are seeing fron the screen shots and webisode?I'm just asking because so far I'm seeing some new stuff but I am also seeing a lot of the old stuff in the webisode.....