Please learn add-on development. These three things ARE NOT engine bugs!!!!!!!! I repeat, they ARE NOT! You can make a house or tree any size you want and put it in any engine, and it will be the same size as it is in FSX. It is up to the developer of the scenery to make the autogen size accurate. You can easily see that the tree size is much better in Flight, especially in the latest video. (the trees are not skyscrapers anymore)

The oversized autogen houses are a bug in FSX. You can't reliably get single storey houses with the FSX autogen because of the way FSX determines building height. It's the reason we see ridiculously large houses even in quality add-ons like ORBX Full Terrain. You're right that in FSX trees are an art issue. If your trees are shorter in the textures then they appear smaller in FSX, though FSX still just randomly scales the texture to give you different tree sizes, which looks weird because mature trees have different shaped crowns to young trees.Still Flight's trees seem much improved over FSX.

You are not the first to say that Flight looks good. Thousands of people already said it. :LMAO:Learn how to make a 3d engine, then say it's not hard at all to make the FSX engine look better with DX10 or 11.Please learn add-on development. These three things ARE NOT engine bugs!!!!!!!! I repeat, they ARE NOT! You can make a house or tree any size you want and put it in any engine, and it will be the same size as it is in FSX. It is up to the developer of the scenery to make the autogen size accurate. You can easily see that the tree size is much better in Flight, especially in the latest video. (the trees are not skyscrapers anymore) Webisode 2 did have bigger trees. Seems like they changed the tree textures and models since then.The wheel sinking in is a contact points issue. This can easily be fixed, and it probably has been/will be by Microsoft since that VERY EARLY webisode.I can safely say that Hawaii will not look any different online or offline. We have talked about this issue before and why it would not be possible, or doesn't make any sense.

You can't take what I said out of context, please re-read what I wrote.Do you think I pulled this quote out of my a$ ....."connected experience to be more enjoyable and immersive"...mean "connected experience to be more enjoyable and immersive", this is directly from the horse's mouth, now you believe what you want.

Only Microsoft will be able to provide the minimum system requirements for Flight; then you will have to wait until it is released and tested in the real world to get an idea of the actual amount of computing power that will be required to run Flight in a usable fashion.Regards, Mike Mann

I was hoping someone would speculate in system requirements, since many other things about the sim is being speculated :)My own "research", maybe HAWX2 could be a reference, it's a recent fighting sim.HAWX2Recommended system / hardware requirements:CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 or AMD Athlon X2 3600+ or higherVideo card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0-compliant video card or DirectX 9.0-compliant cardMemory: 2 GBPeripherals: Xbox 360 Controller- Andrew

You can't take what I said out of context, please re-read what I wrote.

I did read what you wrote. I'm replying to what you said.

Do you think I pulled this quote out of my a$ ....."connected experience to be more enjoyable and immersive"...mean "connected experience to be more enjoyable and immersive", this is directly from the horse's mouth, now you believe what you want.

"Connected experience to be more enjoyable and immersive" simply refers to online flying with others.

I was hoping someone would speculate in system requirements, since many other things about the seems are being speculated :)My own "research", maybe HAWX2 could be a reference, it's a recent fighting sim.Recommended system / hardware requirements:CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 or AMD Athlon X2 3600+ or higherVideo card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0-compliant video card or DirectX 9.0-compliant cardMemory: 2 GBPeripherals: Xbox 360 Controller- Andrew

The recommendation are based on the minimum required to play the game, that does not mean you'll be able to play the game with all the eyes candy on the minimum required.I play Crysis 2 on my system, Crysis 2 is not 5 years old and is a very demanding game for any PC's, I can tell you that at max res. + all eyes candy on I don't get 100 FPS (and I have a decent PC) so Flight will be the same, as soon as you add some developers add-ons and push the envelope further you'll nee a good PC to enjoy Flight to the max.

I was hoping someone would speculate in system requirements, since many other things about the sim is being speculated :)

Speculate? Who would do that? Just because half the people on this forum think that Microsoft Flight will cure cancer and improve their love life (or at least give them an orgasm or two) and the other half figures Microsoft Flight will be a dumbed down version of FSX, I don't see where your proof of speculation is coming from.Regards, Mike Mann

Why will the conected experience be more enjoyable and immersive?....here is my explaination, get online, shop in the store, add scenery like Florida, California or Fuji island + the airport of your choice if you want to after paying for it and that's the purpose of the online store something you will not be able to have offline cause if you can the experience offline will be as enjoyable and immersive as the experience online.

Or...could it mean that they are hoping more folks will find that flying with others will "be more enjoyable and immersive"?

"Connected experience to be more enjoyable and immersive" simply refers to online flying with others.

See, again, I did not read that part in MS press released ..."simply refers to online flying with others", but your interpretation is as good as mine and I respect that, as for me I'll go with what I read.

Jamie, with all due respect I don't think anyone here said that Flight will be a flop or a bad sim., not at all, I am the first one to say that Flight look good, I mean seriously how hard can it be to make Flight better than FSX with DX10 or DX11 to start with?? Not hard at all...The big debate started after we saw the first pics. and first vid. between peoples who beleived that Flight was built from scratch and by that I mean a brand new engine and others (like me) who saw that Flight was based on the FSX engine and this is no rumours or speculations, let me give you just 3 small examples, oversized houses, oversized trees and if you look at the webisode 2 LIFT you can see the back whell of the plane sinking into the runways so do you think that if Flight was based on a brand new engine we would see the same (bugs, bad coding, problems or what ever you want to call it) exact problems (just to take these three) we saw in FSX repeated in Flight and be just a coincidence....?....naaaaa.I, at first, did not think MS would build Flight starting with the same engine for some of the reason explained above + the performance issue FSX is having and other problems like popping autogen so you can understand my surprise when I saw the same based engine used for Flight, does that mean MS can't fix it...not at all but they did not finished FSX DX10 and they showed us a DX10 picture that was misleading so from there you can understand peoples skepticism and questioning. Here is something I am questioning, this is from MS in one of their press released...Quote: One topic that has been voiced is the concern over online game play. We understand some people are worried that featuring Microsoft Flight on Games for Windows – LIVE will require you to always be connected online to play. Not true. Rest assured that you can play offline if you choose. We hope that you will find the connected experience to be more enjoyable and immersive. But to be clear, the choice will be all yours. end of quote.Here is the part everybody need to pay attention to and I'll explain why...." Rest assured that you can play offline if you choose. We hope that you will find the connected experience to be more enjoyable and immersive" ....why??? Why will the conected experience be more enjoyable and immersive?....here is my explaination, get online, shop in the store, add scenery like Florida, California or Fuji island + the airport of your choice if you want to after paying for it and that's the purpose of the online store something you will not be able to have offline cause if you can the experience offline will be as enjoyable and immersive as the experience online.So if Hawaii is Flight default what will it look like with add-ons? and if Hawaii is the Flight online experience what will it look like offline (default)?

Wow, that's abig... essay XD Just kidding... I didn't say Flight was a bad sim!!! ROFL...quite the opposite!!!! I didn't even intend for it to be interpreted that wayeither, but since it’s shifted to that topic... I've always seen the flaws ofFlight that are identical to that of FSX's... there's no denying that. I can’tsee where you got that idea from. The only thing I was trying to say is thatmany people have slated the similarities between FSX and Flight (this hasalready been discussed a LOT). I acknowledge that it’s not a totally new enginebut people don't seem to realise that they probably won’t make the samemistakes they made with FSX, I think Flight will be a pleasant surprise formost of us (people are already surprised on how lovely Flight looks in the newvideo), people seemed to be thinking it’s just 'FSX Service Pack 3' or whateverthat changed to... There is no denying that a few people in the FS communityare quite, well... stubborn at times! Aren't we all, I mean... we're verypassionate about our hobby, but since a lot of things have happened in the pastwith FS, doesn't mean they will definitely happen in the future with Flight. I can’tstand FSX, but I love it for what it is. I enjoy flying; but I really don'tenjoy it when I get fatal errors, out of memory messages, huge glitches andmany other problems that come with how FSX was built. The only thing that keepsme playing on FSX is my love for flying, and only that. I already tried X-plane9, I wasn't happy with that, it’s much too hyped up I'm my opinion... but atleast I gave it a go. Bit like how I'm pretty sure I've always hated broccoli,until I tasted it.... now it’s not so bad. Now please don't start reading thisas if e.g. I was being sarcastic, mean, or pointing fingers... that is a hugeproblem with some forums, well all of them, sometimes people can miss-readthings and believe I meant something I didn't even intend to (no doubt peoplewill slate that exact sentence). All I'm trying to get at is, unless you have atime machine or even if you somehow can see into the future with your own mind,we should all try to realise that FSX is FSX... FS9 is FS9... and the past isthe past. MS are most likely not ditching the simulator tag because they 'will'be dumbing down the simulation aspect, but probably more because of the hugeidea that is attached with that word; simulation. It may give the impression ofdifficulty and maybe having to read a 50 page manual to be able to fly a planelike the MD-11... It’s quite daunting at first! Maybe MS is trying to startfresh, and really impress us this time round (don't... I know what you’re thinking.I actually meant that as in, REALLY impress us, pee yourself with excitementkind of impress... okay that was a little too far). I hope that when we do getFlight in the stores (or on the MS marketplace thing) that we do give it a go,even if you may want to stay with FSX/ FS9 (really?)... It won’t be thatbig of an expense, sure you may have spent quite an amount on add-ons, but ifyou get a product that doesn't even need the majority of your add-ons (cept'planes and airports) because it already looks amazing and may not need e.g.REX, why would you want them? If Flight turns out to not be what you expected,or would have liked, then at least you are showing your support and alsokeeping the franchise alive. Then maybe the next one will be better suited toyour tastes. We all have our own list in our head that we would like to see, orhope for in Flight. Let’s just hope we get those important bugs with FSX fixedin Flight, then improve on key areas to bring it more up to date and up tostandards of today, then worry about other, less important things. I hope Iworded all that correctly to assure you won’t miss-read that. I do try Now, about the online play. We all know howcraptastic Gamespy was on FSX, oh how we really know about that. WindowsLIVE will bring many great things to Flight I think, and no... You don't haveto pay a monthly fee for it. I play online on Windows LIVE quite often and myexperience with it has been very good. Sure a lot of things have their problems,but it’s nothing major... I heard (sorry, I don't have a source for this.... itwas on Kotaku though... a few months ago) that MS is planning to revamptheir Windows LIVE and improve on it much more to better suit everyone. LIVEreally adds to the experience because you can fly with your friends, have funand really enjoy the company, sure AI traffic is one thing, but it’s nowherenear as fun as playing with other people. I'm sure LIVE will bring plenty ofnew things for us (I hope for a better shared cockpit feature). There areplenty of reasons that I could explain how LIVE will add to Flight, but itdoesn't take much to figure out the possibilities (be realistic though). There will always be screaming 12 year olds in an F-18 no matterwhere you go online, but as long as we have the feature to kick the users thatare causing major trouble for other people, it will be fine. LIVE will bring awider audience to the beauty of Flight, it doesn't matter if they may be a 'knob', we have all been like that whenever you just started flying on here, nomatter the generation. What I want to see is some sort of VATSIM likecommunity, but I don't like VATSIM. I think there is one very easy way tomanage the mean kids who just want to 'have a laugh' / ruin someone's day...make sure you have to e.g. complete a training 'mission (s)' that prepares youfor what to expect in that kind of VATSIM like environment (maybe not soVATSIM-is though, for me...a nicer environment would be much better, I justmean a larger group of people that want to not so much fly in extreme realism, but instead feel more authentic and maybe a little more mature). I think that would work well,and it may make you feel like you’re a real pilot doing your training! Ornot... but I'd sure welcome that feature.If there's anything I've not covered, please tell me and ill be sure to spend another 30 mins typing a essay-like forum post :( **EDIT** Oh well, I've been so busy typing that you've all pretty much said what I was inferring. LOL Jamie ♥

Speculate? Who would do that? Just because half the people on this forum think that Microsoft Flight will cure cancer and improve their love life (or at least give them an orgasm or two) and the other half figures Microsoft Flight will be a dumbed down version of FSX, I don't see where your proof of speculation is coming from.Regards, Mike Mann

PHOUahahagnaaaaaaaahahagnagna I don't remember when is the last time I laugh that hard....................:(

Speculate? Who would do that? Just because half the people on this forum think that Microsoft Flight will cure cancer and improve their love life (or at least give them an orgasm or two) and the other half figures Microsoft Flight will be a dumbed down version of FSX, I don't see where your proof of speculation is coming from.Regards, Mike Mann

LOL, good point :)- Andrew

If there's anything I've not covered, please tell me and ill be sure to spend another 30 mins typing a essay-like forum post :(

Thank you for summing up my hours of typing/replying in one essay. :(

Thank you for summing up my hours of typing/replying in one essay. :(

Any time. Jamie ♥

The recommendation are based on the minimum required to play the game, that does not mean you'll be able to play the game with all the eyes candy on the minimum required.I play Crysis 2 on my system, Crysis 2 is not 5 years old and is a very demanding game for any PC's, I can tell you that at max res. + all eyes candy on I don't get 100 FPS (and I have a decent PC) so Flight will be the same, as soon as you add some developers add-ons and push the envelope further you'll nee a good PC to enjoy Flight to the max.

Nice than someone got some humor here :)... I guess I might end up as with 2004 and FSX... get the best possible PC... one year after the release :\-Andrew

... I guess I might end up as with 2004 and FSX... get the best possible PC... one year after the release :\-Andrew

I'd recommend waiting for the release. No one even has a clue about what kind of computer is needed yet.