MS Flight and FS1 comparison shots

[Marinjohn 0]

Well at least my computer might be able to run FS1....

[Katana1000S 0]

I czeched that web for Manhattan, and while the jump in quality from FS2002 to FS2004 is striking, the jump from FS2004 to FSX is simply amazing. No wonder the hardware gets so stressed out!Yet I also remember how exciting the first versions of FS for the PC were, even though the graphics are so lousy by today's standard. There was no Windows, dot matrix printers ruled, programs were loaded onto a Winchester Drive (5 MBy!) and a meg of RAM went for a grand, but Flight Simulator let you fly an airplane on your PC!Cheers,- jahman.

Good call, some nice finds here on ancient scenery add ons I once bought for this series ... WoW, we have come on a long way.Agree with you too on the striking advances ... I think it was FS5 that gave us some nice looking 2D panels for once ... FS98 was a stayer, FS2000 was the one that made quantum leaps in graphics but due to PC architecture of the time ... ran like a slug for most of us, FS2002 hauled back the performance deficit and FS2004 fine tuned it ... I prefer to think of FS2004 as FS2002 Service packed ... they are pretty similar.FSX ... I've loved it from the word go and its obviously got more mature and refined over time despite MS bailing out on us, largely due to third party developers.I hope the fan boys here are right, hope MS Flight is worthy, but a few dubious screens and videos aside of Hawaii, we've seen nothing yet to show Flight is worth it, everything I have seen so far is just MS frantically trying to grab back what they discarded in haste ... MS with various cancellations are going to have to go some to get my trust in them back .... yes sirree!Meanwhile I've been doing some research on how X Plane 10 is looking just now ... and with confirmation that Aerosoft and others are 100% behind them, you have to admit, MS might have blown it. The Xplane 10 stuff I've seen so far looks stunning, have to remember too, X-Planes flight modelling was always good, didn't they have some real life flight certification years ago ... MS flight sim can only dream about this.Time will tell.

[bandman 12]

I've given X-Plane a few different tries. I just couldn't stand it. The UI was horrible. Other than that though right out of the box X-Plane maybe a better simulator than FSX. But with all of the scenery and aircraft add-ons that are available for FSX there is really no comparison between the two.The day after Orbx, A2A, RealAir and PMDG all get on board with X-Plane is the day I switch.The only developer that I regularly buy from that has been willing to support X-Plane is Carenado. But then Carenado is not necessarily know as an innovator in terms of flight dynamics. I just buy from them because the developers building more complex models don't seem to be too interested in making the more common GA right now. I'm still waiting for a good C172 that has more advanced features such as more realistic spin and stall characteristics, visible icing and cumulative damage modelling. With the majority of the flight schools still using C172s it seems like there should also be a real commercial market for something like this.

[Katana1000S 0]

I've given X-Plane a few different tries. I just couldn't stand it. The UI was horrible. Other than that though right out of the box X-Plane maybe a better simulator than FSX. But with all of the scenery and aircraft add-ons that are available for FSX there is really no comparison between the two.

I've given X-Plane at least two sincere tries in the past too, its the clunky interface that gives the first impression and its that ... that has put me off both times because I've been spoiled by the slightly more slick interface of MS sims ... that cant stay that way forever though ... please look at everything new with fresh eyes folks, otherwise we will become jaded.But reading between the lines everything I've read both from Austin and Aerosoft who seem to be backing this title to the hilt say it will be different this time ... this time I believe them.Time will tell ... at the end of the day I'm an enthusiast and I'll buy both, but this time it looks like war and the platform with best support will win, and lets just hope its not MS by default this time as per usual ... hopefully both of these players will realise this and produce a playable demo.Never forget folks, MS have been beaten in their own flight sim game before, they have let the ball drop before (but never as big as this) and let other smaller more talented company's soar ahead ... there can be no arguing that Looking Glass kicked MS FS into place at the time with Flight Unlimited, Flight Unlimited II and finally Flight Unlimited III, flight model wise, scenery wise, ATC wise, weather wise ... even mission wise these sims were way ahead of MS sim of the time ... Looking Glass at that time had some of the best talented programmers in the world who could work as a team and not against each other as seems evident in the MS camp, they could turn their hand to anything, even adventure games ... sadly they were crushed.Interesting times ahead.

[jhefner 0]

please look at everything new with fresh eyes folks, otherwise we will become jaded.

It's too late for you....-James

[mgh 89]

...t Looking Glass kicked MS FS into place at the time with Flight Unlimited, Flight Unlimited II and finally Flight Unlimited III, flight model wise, scenery wise, ATC wise, weather wise ... even mission wise these sims were way ahead of MS sim of the time ...

Let's take of our rise-tinted spectacles. Flight Unlimited III covered only 10,000 sq miles of the US Pacific north west - not the whole world. http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/160/160979p1.htmlNot surprising then that Looking Glass Studios went belly-up in 2000. Since then Microsoft released FS2002, FS2004, FSX and soon Flight. I prefer an active developer to a long-dead one.

[Tierborn 189]

"......... there can be no arguing that Looking Glass kicked MS FS into place at the time with Flight Unlimited, Flight Unlimited II and finally Flight Unlimited III, flight model wise, scenery wise, ATC wise, weather wise ... even mission wise these sims were way ahead of MS sim of the time ... Looking Glass at that time had some of the best talented programmers in the world who could work as a team and not against each other as seems evident in the MS camp, they could turn their hand to anything, even adventure games ... sadly they were crushed.Interesting times ahead.

I dont think many would agree that MS got their "" kicked. Flight Unlimited was a specialized flight sim . IT cover only 10k sq miles. MSFS covers 196 million sq miles.

[bonchie 2,305]

Good call, some nice finds here on ancient scenery add ons I once bought for this series ... WoW, we have come on a long way.Agree with you too on the striking advances ... I think it was FS5 that gave us some nice looking 2D panels for once ... FS98 was a stayer, FS2000 was the one that made quantum leaps in graphics but due to PC architecture of the time ... ran like a slug for most of us, FS2002 hauled back the performance deficit and FS2004 fine tuned it ... I prefer to think of FS2004 as FS2002 Service packed ... they are pretty similar.FSX ... I've loved it from the word go and its obviously got more mature and refined over time despite MS bailing out on us, largely due to third party developers.I hope the fan boys here are right, hope MS Flight is worthy, but a few dubious screens and videos aside of Hawaii, we've seen nothing yet to show Flight is worth it, everything I have seen so far is just MS frantically trying to grab back what they discarded in haste ... MS with various cancellations are going to have to go some to get my trust in them back .... yes sirree!Meanwhile I've been doing some research on how X Plane 10 is looking just now ... and with confirmation that Aerosoft and others are 100% behind them, you have to admit, MS might have blown it. The Xplane 10 stuff I've seen so far looks stunning, have to remember too, X-Planes flight modelling was always good, didn't they have some real life flight certification years ago ... MS flight sim can only dream about this.Time will tell.

They may just be a few screenshots, but I've already seen enough to get me excited. Even with REX, GEX, ASE, etc. there's just something about FSX that doesn't look good anymore (not even getting into the performance issues that still exist with heavy AI traffic on top of all that). I love to fly, not just because of the technical aspects, but because of the eye candy and sense of flight that comes with it.The detail and immersion in the above screenshot is superb.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

They may just be a few screenshots, but I've already seen enough to get me excited. Even with REX, GEX, ASE, etc. there's just something about FSX that doesn't look good anymore (not even getting into the performance issues that still exist with heavy AI traffic on top of all that). I love to fly, not just because of the technical aspects, but because of the eye candy and sense of flight that comes with it.

I agree. I may not completely switch for a while, but I will certainly be using Flight a lot when it first comes out to explore, enjoy, and repeat. (Ha....MS Flight pun...) If it exceeds my expectations, FSX might be thrown out the window and run over with a pick-up truck. It just doesn't have that "Feel" anymore now that we've been shown Flight.

[frankla 44]

They may just be a few screenshots, but I've already seen enough to get me excited. Even with REX, GEX, ASE, etc. there's just something about FSX that doesn't look good anymore (not even getting into the performance issues that still exist with heavy AI traffic on top of all that). I love to fly, not just because of the technical aspects, but because of the eye candy and sense of flight that comes with it.The detail and immersion in the above screenshot is superb.

+1. I enjoy flight for the views and perspectives from above. Handling a technical equipment is just a bonus.

[ByramJ 10]

I just died from laughter! Brilliant post...

[CLett737 14]

That screenshot does look good! Looks a little too clean to be pure though.