MS Flight Webisode 4: Explore

[Guest ShinyJetSyndrome]

Im just sick and tired of people constantly beating down on MS Flight with that FSX DX10 concept art, using that as a reason to doubt everything that comes out of MS.

Ok. The IL-2 Cliffs of Dover epilepsy filter debacle. Another reason to take much of what's shown in preview pictures/videos with an extremely minuscule, tiny, microscopic, small, tiny grain of salt.Happy?

[Gibbage 199]

Ok. The IL-2 Cliffs of Dover epilepsy filter debacle. Another reason to take much of what's shown in preview pictures/videos with an extremely minuscule, tiny, microscopic, small, tiny grain of salt.Happy?

Please. IL2 CoD is a joke. They removed the epilepsy filter and the frame rate did not improve because it was such a poorly written and buggy engine! I did many MANY test's, and from the extreme too the low detail setting, you only get 20% improvement in FPS, but everything looks WORSE then the original IL2! Even dual/quad core or SLI/Xfire are not supported. Whats worse, is its not even taking 100% of 1 CPU, but around 60%. It simply old code that cant use new hardware, much like FSX.Over and over MS has stated that PERFORMANCE one of the main goals for Fligh. That was never really a consideration for FSX (and FS11 honestly), since all it did was add costly features too FS2004, and FS2004 only added costly features too FS2002 and so on. You need to brake away from old code in order to advance. To start from scratch, we may not get all the wiz-bang features FSX had, but I would rather do that, then tack on more features too a rusty old engine and deal with eve LESS performance.

[Guest ShinyJetSyndrome]

Over and over MS has stated that PERFORMANCE one of the main goals for Fligh. That was never really a consideration for FSX (and FS11 honestly), since all it did was add costly features too FS2004, and FS2004 only added costly features too FS2002 and so on. You need to brake away from old code in order to advance. To start from scratch, we may not get all the wiz-bang features FSX had, but I would rather do that, then tack on more features too a rusty old engine and deal with eve LESS performance.

Preaching to the choir!

[bsmfinegan 12]

Ok. The IL-2 Cliffs of Dover epilepsy filter debacle. Another reason to take much of what's shown in preview pictures/videos with an extremely minuscule, tiny, microscopic, small, tiny grain of salt.Happy?

Marketing Depts can't be trusted, it's amzing what you can do with a little bit of skill and the right software.Not saying that is the case with MS but the temptation is always there to...well you know...enhance.... a little bit.Bryan.

[mgh 89]

Over and over MS has stated that PERFORMANCE one of the main goals for Fligh.

All that I can find Microsoft has actually stated is "achieving better performance on today’s hardware" (News 8 December 2010) That's a two-edged - think of the different ways performance could be increased.Can you point me to where Microsoft has over and over refered to performance?

[SirDrexl 0]

Maybe a doctored screenshot wouldn't be that much of a lie. I'm hoping Flight will have a "photo" mode like in Gran Turismo and a few other games. In this mode, the engine freezes the scene, and you can tweak the image in ways it couldn't do in real time and maintain a playable framerate. You can move the camera around, add more anti-aliasing, adjust the depth of field, add special effects, etc.

[Rimshot 1,140]

All that I can find Microsoft has actually stated is "achieving better performance on today’s hardware" (News 8 December 2010) That's a two-edged - think of the different ways performance could be increased.Can you point me to where Microsoft has over and over refered to performance?

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/335304-pc-pilot-may-june-summary-of-flight-interview/2nd Question - You mentioned a 'New Performance Attitude'. Can you elaborate? Microsoft......previous approach to performance was to maintain a long life over a five-year period (time enough for simmers to go thru two or more computers). This approach was seen as a benefit, until now. The side affect was that no PC could run it with the settings maxed out at product introduction. The new goal is to provide a fantastic experience "out of the box" on the first day......on your current computer.Not over and over, but at least two times :(

[Qatsimo 7]

Adding to the cloud discussion, this is what FSX uses for all the cloud particles:If they would double or even triple the size of the texure, it would allow for 64 or even 144 cloud particles. Nowadays a computer can well handle the larger texture sizes. With the larger number of sprites Flight could step away from the randomly rotating cloud sprites. If needed only randomly mirror them horizontaly to double the cloud variations. Then REX can do their thing to make it perfect, nomore upside down clouds.My 2 cents :(

[flyerboy 114]

Yes it looks ok but I still have doubts. Will the ATC be any better? Will the AI behave better? These videos just look too rendered and too good.

[xXArch_AngelXx 0]

Yes it looks ok but I still have doubts. Will the ATC be any better? Will the AI behave better? These videos just look too rendered and too good.

Lol! That's more of a compliment rather than a complaint. ROFL! Watch some FSX videos on YouTube from people like Jon, Dexter and others... they may seem to be 'renderd' but in fact, they aren't. But they did spend lots of money on hardware and add-ons. In flight, if this is what we get as default, who even needs all those add-ons? If Flight already looks great when you first play it, why should we obsess over add-ons? Maybe aircraft and some airport scenery, but everything else I believe will be awesome out of the box, so much so... we might not even dream of using lots of add-ons to enhance what we already will have. We'll see Jamie ♥

[daru1 0]

No ATC or true overcast. Can't wait for them to demonstrate this in the next video in a couple of months! /s-off

[alainneedle1 97]

Lol! That's more of a compliment rather than a complaint. ROFL! Watch some FSX videos on YouTube from people like Jon, Dexter and others... they may seem to be 'renderd' but in fact, they aren't. But they did spend lots of money on hardware and add-ons. In flight, if this is what we get as default, who even needs all those add-ons? If Flight already looks great when you first play it, why should we obsess over add-ons? Maybe aircraft and some airport scenery, but everything else I believe will be awesome out of the box, so much so... we might not even dream of using lots of add-ons to enhance what we already will have. We'll see Jamie ♥

Alleluia.....girl you make a lot of sense, I've been saying the same thing in earlier post, if this is default Flight who will need add-ond, I mean if the rest of the world look like Hawaii (when finished) add-ons developers will not sell much, one airport here one there BUT if Hawaii is not default what is it, an add-ons to show us what you can get from the store?Some peoples said that Hawaii is an enhance default scenery like MS did with FSX (ST-Martin I think, not sure) to promote the sim.....WHAT!!!...a bait and switch type of promo, if you want more good scenery like Hawaii you need to buy it? :( So it's easy to understand, if Flight default is like Hawaii all over the world = not much $$$ for add-ons developers, I mean we saw Hawaii main airport right, this airport look as good as an add-on airport = who need add-ons for Flight BUT if Flight default is NOT like Hawaii all over the world you will have to buy add-ons to make it look like Hawaii and it's airport......:( It's one or the other, it can't be both, so starting from the fact that we all know MS is opening a store to sell add-ons TO MAKE MONEY do you think Flight default will be like Hawaii is........:(

[mgh 89]

http://forum.avsim.n...ight-interview/2nd Question - You mentioned a 'New Performance Attitude'. Can you elaborate? Microsoft......previous approach to performance was to maintain a long life over a five-year period (time enough for simmers to go thru two or more computers). This approach was seen as a benefit, until now. The side affect was that no PC could run it with the settings maxed out at product introduction. The new goal is to provide a fantastic experience "out of the box" on the first day......on your current computer.Not over and over, but at least two times :(

Doesn't that mean that Flight will be limited to run on current computers out of the box with all sliders maxed - if there are actually any sliders? It could also mean that future enhancements will be released in step with computer development and possibly have to be paid for, like Acceleration.

[mmann 72]

Doesn't that mean that Flight will be limited to run on current computers out of the box with all sliders maxed - if there are actually any sliders? It could also mean that future enhancements will be released in step with computer development and possibly have to be paid for, like Acceleration.

This is definitely the way I see it too. Microsoft (sorry, Microsoft) is about making money just like any successful business is. I can't see all that eye candy with the full fidelity of FSX, combined with the same number and effectiveness of sliders as FSX, running on a over the counter non-overclocked computer.Regards, Mike Mann

[mgh 89]

This is definitely the way I see it too. Microsoft (sorry, Microsoft) is about making money just like any successful business is. I can't see all that eye candy with the full fidelity of FSX, combined with the same number and effectiveness of sliders as FSX, running on a over the counter non-overclocked computer.Regards, Mike Mann

I checked on Amazon UK's top 10 best selling PCs to give some sort of indication of what's selling. Their average price is £413 including VAT. at 20% (~ US$660) The processor types split equally between Intel Core i3, and AMD Athlon. None has more than 4Gb of RAM and several only have Intel Integrated HD Grapics.