After looking at screenshot 4 and comparing it to X-Plane, I'd say MS will win this round. Honolulu Intl and the ;and around it looks better than anything I've seen in the X-Plane 10 screenshots.(for the most part)

Keep in mind that you may be seeing payware addons in development here, like I said in my earlier post if MS is to make all airport like that they will stay in early development for ever.....again my guess is that one of the big dev. who was asked so many times why they were not doing Hawaii (and never really explained why they were not) maybe doing it now for Flight?My point is that if after seeing a part of Honolulu airport looking that good in Flight default and assuming all other airports will get the same attention to details why should we bother with payware?Trust me on this one...the dev. are in bed with MS.

Keep in mind that you may be seeing payware addons in development here, like I said in my earlier post if MS is to make all airport like that they will stay in early development for ever.....again my guess is that one of the big dev. who was asked so many times why they were not doing Hawaii (and never really explained why they were not) maybe doing it now for Flight?My point is that if after seeing a part of Honolulu airport looking that good in Flight default and assuming all other airports will get the same attention to details why should we bother with payware?Trust me on this one...the dev. are in bed with MS.

Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii is clearly default scenery. Whether or not it was done by a hired development group, I don't know. But Hawaii will likely be the high detail area of Flight, while the rest of it won't get the extreme treatment, but should look good nonetheless. My point is, we are not seeing payware in Flight. Would not be right on MS's part. They won't make the same mistakes over as they did with FSX.

Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii is clearly default scenery. Whether or not it was done by a hired development group, I don't know. But Hawaii will likely be the high detail area of Flight, while the rest of it won't get the extreme treatment, but should look good nonetheless.

I honestly hope you'r wrong cause if Hawaii is Flight default and MS is only doing Hawaii like that..........well.........:(

How can you knock MS Flight when it hasn't been released yet? Am I missing something here?None of you will know the answer to any of these questions unless: 1) MS releases more info 2) we buy the game once it comes out.

Yep, the fungus among us.

But If you insist on thinking about MS, I will tell you that FSX autogen was made bigger to create volume (hence depth) because they couldn't increase the volume by adding extra building and trees. If they didn't increase the size and couldn't add extra autogen, the lack of autogen coverage would been very noticeable at altitude and would have taken away from perception of depth in the sim. Hence,it was a choice and not a bug.

Ok, I understand why but IMHO it was a big mistake! In fact they should have made it configurable in FSX.cfg or Scenery.Cfg. I for one want accurately scaled autogen.But my point remains, this "bug"/"choice" is still present in Flight and it proves Flight is using the FSX code base (at least for the scenery engine and I imagine most other places too).

Glad you won't be purchasing and spreading the fungus among us.

Glad you won't be purchasing and spreading the fungus among us.

Jim... seriously....I understand where you'r comming from because I am as passionate as you are about Flight but if by pointing out to you and others some of what we see in Flight as the same bugs we see FSX make us fungus....well ...so be it but the fact remain that Flight is based on the same FSX engine including some fixes and some enhancement.

OK, so what. Is FSX just FS9 with some fixes and enhancements? Is FS9 the same for FS2002? Is FS2002 the same from FS2000? Is FS2000 the same from FS98? Heck, was FS5 the same for FS4? Some of you wen't even born then.NoNoNoNoNo

I want to ask something different:Why is there still no "March Update"? Any ideas?

I want to ask something different:Why is there still no "March Update"? Any ideas?

Well, since these pics were posted in March, I would consider them the update, no?

The airport in the March images is not that great at all, I would put it on par with freeware not payware... or at least I wouldn't pay for that kind of quality. For default it is okay... but again not great.My biggest question is why have they altered some (if not all) of these shots?? shot 3 and 5 look like box art, maybe they just don't have much to show at this point, or maybe they too think that it should look a little better. Saying this is more like an update to FSX than a new chapter is a very accurate description given what little material we have been given.It's a double edged sword, on one hand I am happy to get these updates to see the progress as it takes place, but on the other hand the progress is either slow (early in the cycle) or Microsoft are going to be selling a re-badged FSX. The devs did note that it is a good thing that we see so much of FSX in their videos and photos, because it puts to rest the anxieties of Flight not living up to the series. The problem is that FSX leaves such a bitter sweet taste in the mouth, and seeing the next generation looking so similar, at least for me, brings thoughts of the bitter more than the sweet.

Well, since these pics were posted in March, I would consider them the update, no?

Sorry, you misunderstood me:I want to know, why there was no email sent out (respectively no "up-to-date text newsletter")?

OK, so what. Is FSX just FS9 with some fixes and enhancements? Is FS9 the same for FS2002? Is FS2002 the same from FS2000? Is FS2000 the same from FS98? Heck, was FS5 the same for FS4? Some of you wen't even born then.NoNoNoNoNo

I don't know Jim, I can only talk about what I'm seeing and not about what I'm not seeing, let's forget about SP3 or FSX enhanced or the name they gave to it (Flight) and tell me you don't see any of the bugs we have in FSX in any of the screen shots or webisode, and if you do do you think you'll see the same one on a brand new platform, MS repeating the same mistake all over again with something brand new? To me it is clear that they are fixing FSX as much as they are able to and they are adding new stuff to it, renaming it Flight to attract a wider audience and having it online with a market store is that what's new to me.Again if by pointing out to you or others the bugs we can see in Flight been the same as the one we have in FSX made us a fungus so be it.

OK, so what. Is FSX just FS9 with some fixes and enhancements? Is FS9 the same for FS2002? Is FS2002 the same from FS2000? Is FS2000 the same from FS98? Heck, was FS5 the same for FS4? Some of you wen't even born then.NoNoNoNoNo

Actually, mostly yes. Certainly FSX is FS9 with some fixes. If this were not the case, you could not have the same FS9 add-on scenery and aircraft work in FSX (with/without some fixes).Visually, FSX looks different from FS9, but that's just cosmetic. Under the hood, you have the same fundamental techniques to render terrain and aircraft (with some new techniques and higher res textures).Clearly, software as complex as FSX cannot be completely re-written for each release. Nor should it be. However, subsystems could be re-written to take full advantage of new technologies instead of just applying some fixes.Service packs generally do not replace subsystems, just tweak them. Replacing textures to make things look better are tweaks. Modifications to accept more of something (higher res, more aircraft) are just small fixes.What is really new in FSX over FS9? Road and boat traffic, missions. Nothing Earth shattering.What is really new in Flight over FSX? So far, just some better looking textures and some changes to the rendering pipeline and shaders. The jury is still out if all of this is better than some 3rd party developers have already done with FSX add-ons.Some of us want to see what's under the hood. Are there going to be fundamental changes to how certain things are done. Are we going to get more realistic weather patterns, AI, ATC, flight dynamics?Enough with the clearly special area of Hawaii which already had special attention in FSX. On top of that, let's not have any more post-processed images.