May FSX and Flight Comparison Screenshots

[Andydigital 93]

I think they learned that lesson from the DX10 mock ups, or at least I hope they did. By the way the terrain mesh is a lot more detailed in Flight at least in the shots above, let's hope the whole world is modelled in similar resolution.

[bsmfinegan 12]

I think they learned that lesson from the DX10 mock ups, or at least I hope they did. By the way the terrain mesh is a lot more detailed in Flight at least in the shots above, let's hope the whole world is modelled in similar resolution.

Don't get me wrong I am looking forward to this product as much as the next person, but no doubt the marketing department at MS are in charge of the promotional aspects of the release and we all know how marketing thinks!Bryan.

[Attila 2]

I really HOPE that there is no backwards compatibility in Flight. 2 big reasons.#1, having backwards compatibility locks you into old systems and old code. In order to move forward, you MUST cut ties holding you back. Thats one of the reasons why FSX was so buggy and laggy. A ton of old code in there to support backwards compatibility. Sometimes its better to start from scratch.#2, im a 3rd party artist, and work for 3rd party venders. If all my old stuff works in Flight, I wont have much of a job ;)

I can see where compatibility is an issue for making money. However #1 does not have to be so. If software is written properly, backward compatibility can be maintained at a small cost in most cases. I know, because I have done this for nearly 30 years.There is no reason why old scenery, aircraft etc should not be compatible (at reduced visuals and/or functionality) with new code, except for point #2.If compatibility is maintained at some level, you instantly get more sales of Flight and you have a chance to sell upgraded or new add-ons that run along with the old. If compatibility is not maintained, you run the risk of having much lower sales of Flight among the very people who would be your customers for your new add-ons - the ones with a significant investment in FSX/FS9 add-ons.Numerous people have already stated that they are not excited about Flight because it will likely not have the selection of scenery and aircraft for a year or more that they are using in FSX. These are the potential customers you will lose by not having backward compatibility. If I were an add-on developer, I'd want MS to keep compatibility or have a clear migration path AND put in enough new features that would allow me to create products worthy of re-purchase. The worst thing you can do is trying to convince me to buy an aircraft for Flight that does not have any worthwhile features over its FSX predecessor which I already have.

[mmann 72]

I really hope that Flight maintains no backwards compatibility; the main reason is performance. In FSX the main performance problems I have run into are scenery that use FS9 models (or worse, SCASM code models) and FS9 native aircraft models. If Microsoft maintains zero backward compatibility then they will be giving Flight a big performance boost right from the start.Regards, Mike Mann

[Pedro Felipe 0]

I made ​​a video comparing the two simulators, hope you enjoy.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7qkpgosrvo&feature=player_embedded

[Mountain Man 142]

Am I the only one starting to get worried that they plan to sell the simulator piece by piece? I am very worried that this simulator will not contain any part of the mainland (other 49 states) on release day.

Sure, they could do that......if they want a sales flop.

[JSkorna 137]

It was a joke, pun, funny, ha-ha, knee slapper, chuckle, laugh, based on the one region of screen shots.

[Attila 2]

I really hope that Flight maintains no backwards compatibility; the main reason is performance. In FSX the main performance problems I have run into are scenery that use FS9 models (or worse, SCASM code models) and FS9 native aircraft models. If Microsoft maintains zero backward compatibility then they will be giving Flight a big performance boost right from the start.Regards, Mike Mann

What does FS9 model performance in FSX have to do with FSX backward compatibility?If you don't like the performance of FS9 scenery or aircraft in FSX, don't use them. Offering backward compatibility to FS9 in FSX does not slow native FSX aircraft or FSX scenery.Don't confuse having backward compatibility with having no improvement. You can improve native Flight visuals and aircraft features without sacrificing backward compatibility or native Flight performance. The worst that can happen is that FSX models will not benefit from the improvements or that performance will not be as high with them installed.

[Guest jahman]

What does FS9 model performance in FSX have to do with FSX backward compatibility?If you don't like the performance of FS9 scenery or aircraft in FSX, don't use them. Offering backward compatibility to FS9 in FSX does not slow native FSX aircraft or FSX scenery.Don't confuse having backward compatibility with having no improvement. You can improve native Flight visuals and aircraft features without sacrificing backward compatibility or native Flight performance. The worst that can happen is that FSX models will not benefit from the improvements or that performance will not be as high with them installed.

+1!Why is this so difficult to comprehend? You want jet-sonic performance, dump your FSX aircraft and only fly native Flight aircraft. Want better than FSX performance, fly with your your FSX aircraft (but you will have to wait quite some time for your favourite aircraft to be re-released native for Flight, and you will also have to pay good money for it). So be careful what you wish for!For scenery, OTOH, backwards compatibility with FSX (where the sim World is already round) should not incur a performance penalty at all. Period. (Exception: If Flight implements curved surface airports, all airports designed for FSX would be broken, but then again automatically force-flattening specific airports when an FSX airport add-on is loaded ought to not be that hard.)Cheers,- jahman.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

(Exception: If Flight implements curved surface airports, all airports designed for FSX would be broken, but then again automatically force-flattening specific airports when an FSX airport add-on is loaded ought to not be that hard.)

I thought it was the other way around in that FSX implimented curved surface airports where as FS9 used flat surface airports?Hence the reason why FS9 airports that have custom ground poly dont work right in FSX and you get the bleed issues. For example, you can port the FlyTampa FS9 airports to work in FSX, but you have to use an ADX file for the ground surface because the ground polys that came with it for FS9 use wont display correctly in FSX and you need to remove them.

[Gibbage 199]

Having all the old FSX systems will be a massive bug farm and a huge draw on resources. It also complicates the development side of things a lot, and takes a LOT longer to program in so you dont overlap or overwrite old code. Its simply faster and easier to start from scratch. If anyone says otherwise, I would truly like to know how much development and or programming experience they have. Your only as strong as your weakest link.

[dm123 19]

These comparison shots make the difference so much clearer! Im really impressed. Im just waiting for night/dusk/dawn lighting shots. Those are by far my favorite time to fly, if I can get the FPS high enough. If this performs well, it will be a hit for sure. With some luck, we will have a video soon of Flight.I think that with Flight, the NGX, XP10, etc, Flight Simulation is about to have a very exciting year.

[Guest jahman]

Having all the old FSX systems will be a massive bug farm and a huge draw on resources. It also complicates the development side of things a lot, and takes a LOT longer to program in so you dont overlap or overwrite old code. Its simply faster and easier to start from scratch. If anyone says otherwise, I would truly like to know how much development and or programming experience they have. Your only as strong as your weakest link.

You not only need programming expertise, you also need business acumen to make the proper decisions.In the case of Flight, it's not just a stand-alone game, it's a frachise, an ecosystem. We have all easily spent 20x - 40x more on PC hardware, flight control hardware, and scenery and aircraft add-ons than the cost of the program itself.Microsoft has always been aware of the value of the ecosystem and has strived where possible to maintain that value by ensuring backward compatibility. Mae the wrong business decision and trash the investment so many of us have made in hardware and add-ons and the franchise could just die.To make succesful gaming franchises you need wisdom, not just coding skills.BTW you can still load and run DOS on your fancy PC you use for FSX today. Backward compatibility exists for a reason. And as others (and me) have explained, backward compatibility does not secessarily degrade performance, and if it does and it bothers you, then just don't run those FSX add-ons that do the performance degrading.Cheers,- jahman.

[Attila 2]

Having all the old FSX systems will be a massive bug farm and a huge draw on resources. It also complicates the development side of things a lot, and takes a LOT longer to program in so you dont overlap or overwrite old code. Its simply faster and easier to start from scratch. If anyone says otherwise, I would truly like to know how much development and or programming experience they have. Your only as strong as your weakest link.

I have been doing this for 25+ years with CADD systems, arguably the worst offenders in changing standards and file formats and having to be backward compatible with data saved by a previous version of the software. APIs change all the time in various software. It does not mean that legacy routines or entire APIs can no longer be supported. In fact, the whole point of API versions is to maintain backward compatibility.Besides, Flight will not be that much different from FSX as to warrant a complete rewrite of any of its systems. I don't know how many times you have rewritten something as complex as FSX, but I can guarantee you that if MS did that, you could say goodbye to many features that they no longer consider worth re-implementing as part of their new design direction, like the "fly online" mantra.

[Gibbage 199]

All the old code slowed down Windows a lot. With Vista and 7, it now runs that old code in a virtual PC. A subsystem of its own RAM and CPU, thats totally DETACHED from Windows itself. DOS is no longer part of Windows base code, thankfully, and we have seen the benifits. Good news thought! You can do this with FSX when Flight comes out! Yay! You can run FSX in the same OS as Flight does!!! YAY! So, you wont need to ditch your old add-on's. Just run FSX, and BOOM! Your entire collection is there! Good news hay? I have even BETTER NEWS! The same works for FS9 and previous versions! Backwards compatibility was a total bug farm in FSX and caused more problems then they were worth. As it is, you still need to do a LOT of work to get FS9 stuff to run properly in FSX, and it still doesent look or work as good as an FSX native aircraft. Doing without that "feature" will help everyone involved, and you can still run your FSX stuff in FSX, were it was made for it. Backwards compatibility for add-on's is quite frankly unheard of in the game industry. I for the life of me cant think of any other game that allows this. Even X-Plane does not like old add-on's! I think that feature spoiled users, and I know for a fact that it KILLED performance a lot.