MS Flight Webisode 4: Explore

[alainneedle1 97]

@ Jamie ♥ ....:( I understand where you are coming from, I don't have a time machine or a crystal ball, that's all I can say on that.My post was not entirely directed to you but at the forum in general, I have to say that I feel a little special after you took 30 minutes to write a long post just for me.......just kidding...:(....noooooot.

[mmann 72]

No one even has a clue ...

You got that right!!Regards, Mike Mann

[xXArch_AngelXx 0]

@ Jamie ♥ ....:( I understand where you are coming from, I don't have a time machine or a crystal ball, that's all I can say on that.My post was not entirely directed to you but at the forum in general, I have to say that I feel a little special after you took 30 minutes to write a long post just for me....... But Jamie is totally the coolest person on the planet because... well, she just is.

I fixed your post. :PBut on a serious note, when you say "My post was not entirely directed to you but at the forum in general..." I also aim to adress not just one person, but people in general. Saves my poor fingers from typing that up every time. XDNow I'll get back to that coursework im supposed to be doing. Jamie ♥

[Virtual Reality 0]

When I see an MS Flight Webisode called Performance and in the video it has the red FPS counter in the top left hand corner, showing different situations in the simulator and what FPS the simulator gets, then I'll be happy.Microsoft are a business after all, and a business wants to sell it's products, so while it's good to look at these Webisode's and Screenshots, this is not Microsoft developers posting these, it's Microsoft's marketing team and they will try and show "better-than-expected" screenshots and videos to us, in order to make us go "WOW", "AMAZING", "BETS SIMULATOR YET".Now I know everyone is different, but i'm going to hold off from buying/making up my mind about "Flight" until I see an independent video/screenshot, from the likes of IGN, EuroGamer, Reviewers and users on YouTube. Showing the "real" game/simulator, and what it really looks like for the average player and not all the different camera angles, lighting positions, effects and get-your-heart-going music in the background you currently see in the Webisode's.This is after all, just my opinion.Virtual Reality

[SirDrexl 0]

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

I wouldn't use HAWX as an indication of what to expect. HAWX is a very different game compared to a flight sim that has to map the entire world and process complicated flight dynamics.Look at how FSX's requirements were way beyond what was needed to run contemporary games of its time (like Oblivion) with similar performance. Flight should be more able to take advantage of multiple cores and the video card, but we don't know to what extent.

[Ben Cap 89]

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.

Why do yopu support MS so much?FSX was a huge fail on my part. When I bought it four 5 years ago it wouldn't even load the game on my PC. When I would turn the settings all the way low I would get 1.5 FPS.-- Now do you understand my frustration with MS? And also note that it doesn't matter is they fired Aces, they are STILL Microsoft.Microsoft seems to have an inability to fully develop something with good realism etc etc....But as my post said earlier in this topic, the video looks insane but I am a bit skeptical still..... They are only showing Hawaii.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Why do yopu support MS so much?FSX was a huge fail on my part. When I bought it four 5 years ago it wouldn't even load the game on my PC. When I would turn the settings all the way low I would get 1.5 FPS.-- Now do you understand my frustration with MS? And also note that it doesn't matter is they fired Aces, they are STILL Microsoft.Microsoft seems to have an inability to fully develop something with good realism etc etc....

I don't support them. I support the product they are developing. FSX was not a failure, it just wasn't given the amount of development time it needed to be finished.The team that developed your huge fail is gone. A new team can do something different. Lets at least give them a chance to release "version 1" of Flight.

[Ben Cap 89]

I don't support them. I support the product they are developing. FSX was not a failure, it just wasn't given the amount of development time it needed to be finished.The team that developed your huge fail is gone. A new team can do something different. Lets at least give them a chance to release "version 1" of Flight.

This "Version 1" better not run at 1.5 fps..........:(

[bsmfinegan 12]

I don't support them. I support the product they are developing. FSX was not a failure, it just wasn't given the amount of development time it needed to be finished.The team that developed your huge fail is gone. A new team can do something different. Lets at least give them a chance to release "version 1" of Flight.

And who failed to give them the development time?FSX is a MS product, not an ACES one.Bryan.

[shivers9 1,174]

Like most of you I have spent sometime trying to figure out where Flight will take us in the future. I have gone to great lengths to not get excited with the hype and to be as open minded as possible. To help me keep my feet on the ground I have started a list (see below) of all the things that I know and can verify about the planned software. Veryified facts about Flight (Last updated Today June 22, 2011 @ 10:24 CDT)1.End of list

[Guest ShinyJetSyndrome]

Veryified facts about Flight (Last updated Today June 22, 2001 @ 10:24 CDT)1.End of list

Look guys, none of us who are complaining about Flight want Microsoft to fail. I've been playing MSFS on and off since Version 5.1 (400 worldwide airports in CD format! AND textured ground and buildings!! ). It's just that we remember the photoshopped sunburst picture with the foamy lake water that made everybody think FSX with DX10 would be epic.Despite that, I enjoy FSX. I fly in a couple of online communities and VATSIM and it keeps me occupied when I'm bored. Would I prefer a little more flight fidelity and a little less bling bling? Sure. But again, it keeps me from being bored from time to time and hell it's cheaper than the Piper Arrow and C172SP I rent to build time.Am I happy that when I get Flight I can have a pretty good payware-quality-like VFR experience over Hawaii by default? Heck yes. Am I happy that a biplane has returned to the default lineup? Yes. Happy there's an emphasis on general aviation as opposed to pretending to be a grossly underpaid/overstaffed airline pilot? Definitely!!I'm appreciative of the hard work they're putting into Flight so far. It just frustrates a lot of people because video snapshots don't reveal much about the inner workings of the simulator. There's just some aspects of MSFS that I feel have been neglected for some time now (aircraft systems, flight dynamics, etc.) that I would like to be addressed in this new edition.

[JSkorna 137]

So how would ANY video snapshot reveal anything about the inner workings of the simulator? There is only one way for that, and that is to have the program installed on your computer.

[Guest ShinyJetSyndrome]

So how would ANY video snapshot reveal anything about the inner workings of the simulator? There is only one way for that, and that is to have the program installed on your computer.

A magazine article. A blog. A sound bite. A press release of any kind. Just observe what the X-Plane developers are doing over on their page.Do I need the details of their programming code? No. Just some basic objectives of their next edition.

[kiwimail 1]

I feel like taking my next holiday in Hawaii. :(

[alainneedle1 97]

Flight will be what FSX should have been before MS closed Aces.Phil T. and his team were working on FSX improvement ( SP3 or what ever you all want to call it and Phil correct me if I'm wrong) and as you all know MS gave them a pink slip by closing Aces.The difference from then and now is that when Flight is released you will have to pay for the enhancement.I can understand Phil's frustration with some of the post here, he and his team were working very hard to get DX10 up and running for FSX, they gave us SP1 and SP2 and I can surely appreciate that, it is just a shame that these guys don't get enough credit for what they did with FSX (they paved the road) and now somebody else will finish their work.