May FSX and Flight Comparison Screenshots

[mmann 72]

What does FS9 model performance in FSX have to do with FSX backward compatibility?

Nothing other than exposing the newer sim to lower performance under certain conditions, which wouldn't arise if you preclude backward compatibility. Microsoft is trying to present Flight as being approached from the ground up, an idea that would be reinforced by cutting all ties to the past (which would explain them showing completely new GA models for Flight rather than rehashed FSX ones).Regards, Mike Mann

[Attila 2]

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.

That's because there are no other game franchises like FS that have run for 20 or so years.How can you "know for a fact" that FSX would perform better if it were not compatible with FS9, such as it is???Don't even mention X-Plane as it is not even backward compatible with its last patch in many cases - so I hear the developers lamenting.

[mgh 89]

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.

Starting again fror scratch would have serious commercial implications. It would also introduce a totally new set of bugs.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Starting again fror scratch would have serious commercial implications. It would also introduce a totally new set of bugs.

It's called a good beta team. If done right, starting from scratch will be a great choice for Microsoft.

[bsmfinegan 12]

Starting again fror scratch would have serious commercial implications. It would also introduce a totally new set of bugs.

Well they better beta test the thing properly then hadn't they?Failing that lets hope they would fully support the product unlike FSX which they dumped with bugs outstanding.This is why I will not be jumping straight in when this is released, MS's attitude stinks, and there is no two ways about that!Bryan.

[mmann 72]

This is why I will not be jumping straight in when this is released, MS's attitude stinks, and there is no two ways about that!

+1I don't think I want to pay Microsoft for the privilege of being a beta tester. When I hear that Flight has a few, relatively minor, outstanding bugs then it will be worth considering. Maybe it will be this way on release, or maybe it will take a service pack of two, either way I will wait and then purchase.Regards, Mike Mann

[Fsau 0]

If you know what to look for, then you can tell its not just a few improvements.As for the coastlines, I'm not sure what screenshots you are looking at, but the transition from land to coastline is much more natural in Flight. Also, take a good look at screenshot 2. You can clearly see a darker section of sand closer to the water. I'm not sure if this is part of the coastline texture, but it seems to match the shape of the waves.The shadows, waves, water, and lighting cannot be replicated in FSX unless it's just a static texture. If it could be replicated in FSX, do you think anyone would be wasting their time here?

Yes the coastlines do have improved textures, you can see wet sand and waves, that much is clear. I was referring to an earlier comment that the waves on the shore looked to be animated, maybe I read it wrong. You can see a clear cut shader laying over the top of the static textures (the shiny bumpy animated part). I am assuming the waves on the beach are static and you are assuming they are animated, I guess we will never truly know until they release some video teasers, I will be happy to be wrong.The waves (if you are referring to the realistic coastlines) can be replicated in FSX through photo scenery, it's just the vector coastlines in FSX that look horrible. The water is using textures and shaders just like FSX all of which can be changed (REX for eg.) and the HDR effect AKA lighting can be achieved by ENB in FSX. Even the higher resolution mesh can be easily achieved in FSX. All of this of course is thanks to 3PD, out of the box there is obviously no comparison, I was just pointing out that besides the smooth dynamic shadows there isn't really much that can't be had in FSX visually.Regardless, I am amazed at how FLIGHT looks, the progress they have made is amazing.

[Gibbage 199]

Ya, a lot of what we see can be made similar in FSX, but at what COST? Thats the key right there. Not only in money, but in frame rate. FSX as it is does not like modern hardware out of the box. Start adding all these nice scenery add-on's, then it may look nice, but its a slide show! As to how I know "for sure" that old code slows things down, I have been working flight sims like IL2, FSX, CFS and others for years. Lets just say I have a little bit more experience then your average arm chair pilot. Its also common knoledge that old code slows down engines no matter what, even if its not directly used. Lets say Flight DOES offer backwards compatibility with FSX, and in turn, FS9. Who is going to test that? There are THOUSANDS of add-on's for both products!!!!! You cant simply just leave in the code and expect it to work! Thats just amazingly foolish to expect that! Then you have 3rd party's that include external DLL's and programs like A2A and PMDG. Those would also need testing. This sort of testing would take YEARS to test. For what? To make a few users with a big collection happy, while you spite the rest of your market by making them wait longer, slowing down the game, and creating a massive bug farm. It just makes no logical sense. I was once on the same page thinking its a good idea, till I had to deal with it personally and professionally. Its a nightmare!!! Its simply NOT WORTH THE TIME. Evolution requires you to ditch your webbed feet and gills in order for you to crawl on dry land effectivly. Keeping all that stuff just hinders progress. Out with the old, in with the new. Im about done with the subject of backwards compatibility. If you dont agree, thats fine, just bring more too the table then "because I think so" because that just doesent fly with me. :(

[alainneedle1 97]

Ya, a lot of what we see can be made similar in FSX, but at what COST? Thats the key right there. Not only in money, but in frame rate. FSX as it is does not like modern hardware out of the box. Start adding all these nice scenery add-on's, then it may look nice, but its a slide show! As to how I know "for sure" that old code slows things down, I have been working flight sims like IL2, FSX, CFS and others for years. Lets just say I have a little bit more experience then your average arm chair pilot. Its also common knoledge that old code slows down engines no matter what, even if its not directly used. Lets say Flight DOES offer backwards compatibility with FSX, and in turn, FS9. Who is going to test that? There are THOUSANDS of add-on's for both products!!!!! You cant simply just leave in the code and expect it to work! Thats just amazingly foolish to expect that! Then you have 3rd party's that include external DLL's and programs like A2A and PMDG. Those would also need testing. This sort of testing would take YEARS to test. For what? To make a few users with a big collection happy, while you spite the rest of your market by making them wait longer, slowing down the game, and creating a massive bug farm. It just makes no logical sense. I was once on the same page thinking its a good idea, till I had to deal with it personally and professionally. Its a nightmare!!! Its simply NOT WORTH THE TIME. Evolution requires you to ditch your webbed feet and gills in order for you to crawl on dry land effectivly. Keeping all that stuff just hinders progress. Out with the old, in with the new. Im about done with the subject of backwards compatibility. If you dont agree, thats fine, just bring more too the table then "because I think so" because that just doesent fly with me. :(

+1, not only for the reason you explained but also for these..MS is opening a store right....now will the store be use to sell MS addons or 3rd party addons....yes you got it right...3rd party addons so starting from there do you think MS is gambling by opening a store just to see if developers will contact them to sell sell in their store OR by opening a store does MS already know who will sell in their store...hummm...yep you got it right again MS and some developers are holding hands since the beginning and even before Flight was announced THAT IS WHY MS is building Flight and opening a store, for the money resulting from the sale of Flight and addons sold from the store.

[mgh 89]

Well they better beta test the thing properly then hadn't they?Failing that lets hope they would fully support the product unlike FSX which they dumped with bugs outstanding.This is why I will not be jumping straight in when this is released, MS's attitude stinks, and there is no two ways about that!Bryan.

That shows a misunderstanding about the nature of beta testing. It's purpose is external user acceptance testing. The major bugs will have been dealt with (or not) as a result of alpha testing. Many of the "bugs" identified in beta testing are not bugs at all but arise because of misunderstanding between expected and provided behavior. In reality it's impossible to write bug-free code of any complexity. I believe NASA achieved 0.1 error per 1000 lines of code. That just isn't generally achievable commercially and the best tends to be about 1 error per 1000 lines of code. Also developers don't remove all bugs because:- there isn't the time or budget to fix all non-severe bugs- they could be fixed in a new version or patch without delaying the release- apparently simple fixes can introduce new bugs so it may be decided only to allow the most critical bugs to be fixedIt tends to be forgotten the Microsoft's objective in developing Flight is to make money for itself - just like any other business. It's target market is the casual gamer, not the enthusiasts who come to thse forums.( I know this has been said before bit it really is worth repeating). How many of the FSX" bugs would even be recognised or cared about by the casual gamer? Those that the casual gamer doesn't recognise can hardly be called bugs.

[bsmfinegan 12]

That shows a misunderstanding about the nature of beta testing. It's purpose is external user acceptance testing. The major bugs will have been dealt with (or not) as a result of alpha testing. Many of the "bugs" identified in beta testing are not bugs at all but arise because of misunderstanding between expected and provided behavior. In reality it's impossible to write bug-free code of any complexity. I believe NASA achieved 0.1 error per 1000 lines of code. That just isn't generally achievable commercially and the best tends to be about 1 error per 1000 lines of code. Also developers don't remove all bugs because:- there isn't the time or budget to fix all non-severe bugs- they could be fixed in a new version or patch without delaying the release- apparently simple fixes can introduce new bugs so it may be decided only to allow the most critical bugs to be fixedIt tends to be forgotten the Microsoft's objective in developing Flight is to make money for itself - just like any other business. It's target market is the casual gamer, not the enthusiasts who come to thse forums.( I know this has been said before bit it really is worth repeating). How many of the FSX" bugs would even be recognised or cared about by the casual gamer? Those that the casual gamer doesn't recognise can hardly be called bugs.

Seems it all comes down to how you define a bug then does it not?On the subject of Beta testing maybe MS should consider the approach of Eagle Dynamics who realised the benefit of an open beta for their A-10 project.Bryan.

[xXArch_AngelXx 0]

That shows a misunderstanding about the nature of beta testing. It's purpose is external user acceptance testing. The major bugs will have been dealt with (or not) as a result of alpha testing. Many of the "bugs" identified in beta testing are not bugs at all but arise because of misunderstanding between expected and provided behavior. In reality it's impossible to write bug-free code of any complexity. I believe NASA achieved 0.1 error per 1000 lines of code. That just isn't generally achievable commercially and the best tends to be about 1 error per 1000 lines of code. Also developers don't remove all bugs because:- there isn't the time or budget to fix all non-severe bugs- they could be fixed in a new version or patch without delaying the release- apparently simple fixes can introduce new bugs so it may be decided only to allow the most critical bugs to be fixedIt tends to be forgotten the Microsoft's objective in developing Flight is to make money for itself - just like any other business. It's target market is the casual gamer, not the enthusiasts who come to thse forums.( I know this has been said before bit it really is worth repeating). How many of the FSX" bugs would even be recognised or cared about by the casual gamer? Those that the casual gamer doesn't recognise can hardly be called bugs.

I totally agree with a lot of that, except this : "It's target market is the casual gamer, not the enthusiasts who come to these forums."I don't know what planet your from, but you are clearly not born on this one XD I mean... come on, MS have said plenty of times that it is aimed at BOTH and will cater to BOTH. In fact, FSX does that! (Difficulty sliders)I'm so tired of trying to say it politely, I might just have to engrave it into your skull, or sear it into your brain maybe. Okay maybe that's a bit too far... but it has been very clear from the beginning that MS will cater to us all. Why? To make more money. If they appeal to a bigger audience it will mean more people will buy the product, thus making more money. Simples.Jamie ♥

[bsmfinegan 12]

I totally agree with a lot of that, except this : "It's target market is the casual gamer, not the enthusiasts who come to these forums."I don't know what planet your from, but you are clearly not born on this one XD I mean... come on, MS have said plenty of times that it is aimed at BOTH and will cater to BOTH. In fact, FSX does that! (Difficulty sliders)I'm so tired of trying to say it politely, I might just have to engrave it into your skull, or sear it into your brain maybe. Okay maybe that's a bit too far... but it has been very clear from the beginning that MS will cater to us all. Why? To make more money. If they appeal to a bigger audience it will mean more people will buy the product, thus making more money. Simples.Jamie ♥

Some good points made there!Bryan

[mgh 89]

I totally agree with a lot of that, except this : "It's target market is the casual gamer, not the enthusiasts who come to these forums."I don't know what planet your from, but you are clearly not born on this one XD I mean... come on, MS have said plenty of times that it is aimed at BOTH and will cater to BOTH. In fact, FSX does that! (Difficulty sliders)I'm so tired of trying to say it politely, I might just have to engrave it into your skull, or sear it into your brain maybe. Okay maybe that's a bit too far... but it has been very clear from the beginning that MS will cater to us all. Why? To make more money. If they appeal to a bigger audience it will mean more people will buy the product, thus making more money. Simples.Jamie ♥

This forum has almost 70,000 members in total. Of those less than 10,000 have posted in the last year. Do you really think that's Microsoft's target market - 10,000 sales when competing games sell in millions? The reality it isn't and Flight must be target ed at a much wider market. As far as Microsoft is concerned we are the "icing on the cake".When you gain some maturity you may learn that abuse doesn't advance arguments.

[bsmfinegan 12]

As far as Microsoft is concerned we are the "icing on the cake".

But a very important "icing" when you consider that MS went out of their way to allay our fears when concerns were raised about a dumbing down of Flight.Bryan.