Flight looks terrible, I'm sticking with FS98!! :(

Oversized autogen looks wrong. All objects in the game should be scaled correctly and overscaling houses to make them add more volume and make the world look more populated is a bad design decision.If Microsoft is not fixing this design flaw in Flight then yes they are cutting corners.

Yes it does look wrong...when you’re driving and such.But at 500feet it looks not bad....where I tend to fly.The thing is it's a compromise. Making games is about many compromises.If you don't like it that's fair - I'd prefer something accurate and sparse too......More than something that 'appears' best for the intended game play.But it's not cutting corners.It’s just a choice that improves performance.And that means you can run PMDG's sim inside FSX.I’m a huge fan of Outerra…still it’s no panacea.It’s a well executed component of a total game.

Yes it does look wrong...when you’re driving.But at 500feet it looks not bad....where I tend to fly.The thing is it's a compromise. Making games is about compromises.If you don't like it that's fair - I'd prefer something accurate and sparse too...More than something that 'appears' right for the intended game play.But it's not cutting corners. It's a choice.

It looks wrong at any altitude, whether you are taxing, on approach or at high alts. Yes its a design choice they made, and having wrongly scaled autogen is the wrong choice for a simulator, IMO.I agree with you, "I'd prefer something accurate and sparse too".

Objects should be properly scaled to reflect relative proportions in the real world. This is a sim after all. Naturally Flight would add flight modelling and use Outerra as the graphics/scenery renderer. See the Outerra blog, this is already happening with a custom flight sim at a Czech Uni.Aerosoft seem to have canned the whole AFS2012 concept. Even if Outerra used a lower 'autogen' density to maintain high FPS it would still outdo FSX/Flight by a long margin.You guys have to just accept that Flight is based on a very outdated FSX engine. As such Flight will continue to suffer from many of the same issues that FSX does.

Read my post about outera again. I edited it. What is Czech Uni using outera for? I doubt they have invested in their own flight simulator. Also I don't believe outera is designed for an average home pc (which microsoft is trying to target to with flight). I doubt Czech Uni is going to run it on a midrange i3 processor with a mid level dedicated video card. Outera is targeting organizations not typical average Joe who is mildly interested in flight simulator with his laptop.

Read my post about outera again. I edited it. What is Czech Uni using outera for? I doubt they have invested in their own flight simulator. Also I don't believe outera is designed for an average home pc (which microsoft is trying to target to with flight). I doubt Czech Uni is going to run it on a midrange i3 processor with a mid level dedicated video card. Outera is targeting organizations not typical average Joe who is mildly interested in flight simulator with his laptop.

I suggest you visit the Outerra forums. They are writing an engine to be licensed to game developers such as Microsoft. The engine is for use in games that are meant to run on todays CPUs and GPUs. It is multi-threaded and scalable. It offloads a lot of work to the GPU leaving the CPU free to run flight modelling, ATC etc.Outerra scales well on midrange PC's, and remember what's high end today is midrange within 2 years.

Oversized autogen looks wrong. All objects in the game should be scaled correctly and overscaling houses to make them add more volume and make the world look more populated is a bad design decision.If Microsoft is not fixing this design flaw in Flight then yes they are cutting corners.

It seems like at least you are arguing that you prefer better scaled autogen than volume. You just don't like what Microsoft has chosen to sacrifice. Which makes me believe you have accepted that there is a compromise that needs to be made. We heard you. WE HEARD YOU. It doesn't make you or me wrong. It just shows that we have different taste. To loudly argue and put down other peoples preferences is just silly. Please stop this! We heard you and we appreciate your input

I suggest you visit the Outerra forums. They are writing an engine to be licensed to game developers such as Microsoft. The engine is for use in games that are meant to run on todays CPUs and GPUs. It is multi-threaded and scalable. It offloads a lot of work to the GPU leaving the CPU free to run flight modelling, ATC etc.Outerra scales well on midrange PC's, and remember what's high end today is midrange in within 2 years.

:( Love Outerra.Now...let's see some urban environments next.Then add some complex game play.They do an amazing job.But they're doing it drawing very simple environments so far.BTW are these fantasy or real world locations?That's all fine.We still need to be cautious about extrapolating.IMO Outerra only covers about 1/8 of the actual FSX SDK.

All this badly scaled autogen will be totally lost on me at 30,000 ft.

All this badly scaled autogen will be totally lost on me at 30,000 ft.

And what about taxi, takeoff / landing, approach / departure?

:( Love Outerra.Now...let's see some urban environments next.Then add some complex game play.They do an amazing job.But they're doing it drawing very simple environments so far.BTW are these fantasy or real world locations?That's all fine.We still need to be cautious about extrapolating.IMO Outerra only covers about 1/8 of the actual FSX SDK.

Yes, urban environments would be nice. I think its basically a 2 man operation.

It seems like at least you are arguing that you prefer better scaled autogen than volume. You just don't like what Microsoft has chosen to sacrifice. Which makes me believe you have accepted that there is a compromise that needs to be made. We heard you. WE HEARD YOU. It doesn't make you or me wrong. It just shows that we have different taste. To loudly argue and put down other peoples preferences is just silly. Please stop this! We heard you and we appreciate your input

Loud? Putting down your preferences? I don't think so.Yes I prefer accurately scaled autogen, happy to not have the same cubic 'volume'. Its not the number of autogen houses that would change, just a reduction in the over-blown scale of the houses.

And what about taxi, takeoff / landing, approach / departure?Yes, urban environments would be nice. I think its basically a 2 man operation.Loud? Putting down your preferences? I don't think so.Yes I prefer accurately scaled autogen, happy to not have the same cubic 'volume'. Its not the number of autogen houses that would change, just a reduction in the over-blown scale of the houses.

Hi Matthew, I can sympathise with the autogen debate, my preference would be to have properly scaled autogen. I've seen the recent video of Xplane 10 and that does indeed appear to show a better scalled autogen than seen in FSX as well. However I can also respect Microsoft design decision and I don't have a big problem with that either. For Flight at this stage we can't say if the same issues with up-scaled autogen exists. None of the screenshots conclusively show upscalled autogen, so I think this is better we wait and see what happens. If you're using Webisode 2 as evidence, well I think that's a poor indicator as this early in the development cycle the autogen on show here I'm sure will change in the coming months, and yes that does mean Microsoft have probably used some of FSX as a temporary template for Flight, but thats not to say FSX's code or content will be recongnisable when Flight is released as I expect pretty much everything to be improved upon. Cheers,Dave.

And what about taxi, takeoff / landing, approach / departure?

Ah, so you do see our point. No matter how you scale/size autogen, it will not look right at every altitude. To fit everyone's needs, there would have to be a setting for autogen size, which wouldn't work out well at all for development reasons.

Objects should be properly scaled to reflect relative proportions in the real world. This is a sim after all. Naturally Flight would add flight modelling and use Outerra as the graphics/scenery renderer. See the Outerra blog, this is already happening with a custom flight sim at a Czech Uni.Aerosoft seem to have canned the whole AFS2012 concept. Even if Outerra used a lower 'autogen' density to maintain high FPS it would still outdo FSX/Flight by a long margin.You guys have to just accept that Flight is based on a very outdated FSX engine. As such Flight will continue to suffer from many of the same issues that FSX does.

+10

Can you give me a link to a pic of autogen in XP10 at above 1000 ft altitude?Thank you! You described it with numbers and thus did it better than I did. Somehow Mathew thinks MS designers have no sense of dimension and/or are trying to deliberately not fix a bug from version to version. He calls it cutting corners as if making smaller autogen is too much work! :rolleyes:For me, once you gain altitude you lose the sense of the size and scale of autogen but not sense of depth and volume. So please don't decide for me and rest of the people about what needs to be sacrificed . If you like looking at autogen on ground level and or very low altitude then get a Train Sim or something. By the way OUTERA does not have a flight, ATC, AI and weather engine on it, so we don't know what it can achieve in a flight simulator. Obviously people in Outera are talented enough to have a scenery in which even wave motions are calculated. All of this brings up a question; why with all the talent, have they not created a flight simulator? Perhaps they don't have the overhead for having the scenery as is and have a fully functioning flight simulator? Have you thought that outera is not meant to run on a typical average home PC? (Microsoft goal for Flight is to make it work on broader range of current PCs)

Outerra is a planetary engine that's sitll in development. Whats Typical ? If you bought your PC at Walmart then Outerra probably won't run very good. FSX barely runs on current PCs now. Flight looks like FSX sp 3... Nothing really that exciting....

Dont some of you guys ever get sick of arguing and saying the same thing over, and over again? It's probably not going to change anything.It's clear that MatthewS hates the scale of the autogen, send MS and email and give them suggestions since posting the same thing over and over here probably wont make any difference but clog the thread with your opinion that you hate the way it looks.

Ah, so you do see our point. No matter how you scale/size autogen, it will not look right at every altitude. To fit everyone's needs, there would have to be a setting for autogen size, which wouldn't work out well at all for development reasons.

No.What I meant was that even if he can't see autogen at 30,000 he will be able to see it closer to the ground and hence how does it feel about the wrong scaling then?Autogen houses will look correct at any altitude assuming those autogen houses are correctly scaled in relation to other types of autogen and in game objects. The problem is autogen houses are over scaled and hence look disproportionally large no matter what your altitude.Wrong is wrong, whether you're at ground level, 100ft or 30,000ft.