Your comment about "ridiculous small details" interest me because for a while I have thought that if I were Microsoft, I would eventually expand the franchise from Flight to World simulator. I really would not be surprised if they indeed plan on doing it. All the basic programming is already there, so why not? In addition to Flight you can plug Train and Ship simulators on it, you can create site seeing/trip planing modes,commercial battlefield simulations locations, etc. You can create drives to and from locations. I wouldn't be shocked if they eventually created a world in which you could create characters in it. Off coarse be prepared to see product placement in this virtual world. But hey they do that in movies now and it doesn't bother me. Are we, flight sim enthusiast, going to be excited about a possible world simulator? We should. It would make sure that millions more people will use the program and that in turn will cause the development of the platform to continue way into future.

yah GTA did this already

I want the "ridiculous small details." If the engine is programmed right, then you can have that level of detail, but also high AI traffic settings. Small detail like that is what FSX lacked. When developers give it that detail, it comes with a FPS cost. A more efficient engine will solve that issue.

yah GTA did this already

Grand Theft Auto? How so?

Ok the world simulator is a separate - and very valid - argument.In the context of Flight being a flight simulator:If I'm doing 145 kts in hard IFR what is the use of having crates on a dock three to four miles away from the extended centerline of the runway?If I'm VFR in a Skylane how big are those crates going to be at any appreciable altitude?In the context of a flight simulator those crates are only going to be useful if you happen to be slewing around the battleshipNow you could say that they are developing the engine for future projects, sure. (I was looking forward to seeing Train Simulator 2 using FSX's several years back.) Again I'm speaking in the context of a pure flight simulator.

Ok the world simulator is a separate - and very valid - argument.In the context of Flight being a flight simulator:If I'm doing 145 kts in hard IFR what is the use of having crates on a dock three to four miles away from the extended centerline of the runway?If I'm VFR in a Skylane how big are those crates going to be at any appreciable altitude?In the context of a flight simulator those crates are only going to be useful if you happen to be slewing around the battleshipNow you could say that they are developing the engine for future projects, sure. (I was looking forward to seeing Train Simulator 2 using FSX's several years back.) Again I'm speaking in the context of a pure flight simulator.

Yes, MS tried to market the FSx engine as a general simulation engine and not just as a FS; so that would make sense.The crates and even the details on the U.S.S. Missouri would be the handled the same way scenery and aircraft details are handled today, by LOD rings. You don't see the crates until you get close to the battleship, they may first appear as simple flat polygons, then "pop" into detailed objects as you get closer.-James

I love it how people like to read things into screenshots. I see details like this all the time in add-on products. Like OrbX have hangers with tool chests and aircraft without wings getting repaired. OW! THAT MEANS ORBX IS MAKING AN AIRCRAFT MECANIC SIMULATOR!!! WHOOOT! No. It means an artist had time to place a few extra objects to make a nice screenshot! As an artist, there is what we call the "Deathstar Therie". Its quite simple. The more detail you give an object, the bigger it looks. A world lacking detail's looks very small! What im seeing in this screenshot is the very definition of the Deathstar therie. Its added details, like crates, boxes, and other random objects to make something look bigger. Now, after hearing and understanding the deathstar therie, go back and look at the rest of the screenshots. See if you cant pick some of this stuff out easy. Trees are an overly obvious example of it, but look closer at objects. Look on the roofs of tall buildings. You will notice on Flight, they put boxes on the roofs! Those are typically HVAC units or elevator rooms. Does this mean WE GET TO USE AIR CONDITIONING AND ELIVATORS IN BUILDINGS? Nope. Just more greeble to make things look bigger. If you look at the buildings vs FSX you will see this works VERY well. BTW, George Lucas came up with this method on Star Wars. He was trying to find a way of making some of the space ships look massive. He did this by glueing random parts from plastic model kits into the surface of the models. These bits are called greeble. And now you know!

Some of us want every possible level of detail right down to seeing sea gull poop on the cockpit window and have already voiced a loud concern that Flight will not be immersive enough. Others will question the need for ‘ridiculous small details’. The only sure thing about Flight, regardless of how good or bad it is, is that when it is released it will never please all of us. From that view point I actually feel quite sorry for Microsoft. I personally think the enclosed screen shot has got me even more excited about Flight. If that level of detail can be shown at an airport the prospects look very promising indeed.

Flight could also take a page from the Microsoft Autogen book and make the crates supersized!! :rolleyes:Regards, Mike Mann

I don't think it was a mistake. They "leaked" it on purpose. It's called advertising.

I don't think it was a mistake. They "leaked" it on purpose. It's called advertising.

What? That would be a very bad advertising plan. Advertising manager: So whats our next move for Flight?Advertising exec: I was thinking we would put up this picture and then take it down before most people would have realized that it was posted.Advertising manager: How will that help us to sell more copies of Flight?Advertising exec: Its the latest thing in advertising ... touch as small of an audience as you can (post a picture of the product for a couple of mins) and the rest of the people that didnt see it will buy your product.Advertising manager: Brilliant ... lets pull "All" of our product advertising immediately ...

What? That would be a very bad advertising plan. Advertising manager: So whats our next move for Flight?Advertising exec: I was thinking we would put up this picture and then take it down before most people would have realized that it was posted.Advertising manager: How will that help us to sell more copies of Flight?Advertising exec: Its the latest thing in advertising ... touch as small of an audience as you can (post a picture of the product for a couple of mins) and the rest of the people that didnt see it will buy your product.Advertising manager: Brilliant ... lets pull "All" of our product advertising immediately ...

Actually, it is pretty much the latest thing in advertising, it's called viral marketing, where you get others to spread your message through forums, emails and social networks as opposed to buying media, by creating something controversial or interesting, and since they only did it with one pic (on a social network) and put all the others through their normal advertising medium, it is entirely possible that this was the intent.Al

If that's the Missouri(BB-63) I'll eat my hat! It definately is not a superimposed photo of Big Mo moored anywhere. A whole lotta guns are missing and that ship is nowhere near big enough.The Missouri is 887ft long and has a beam of 108ft. That is just slightly smaller than the aircraft carrier USS Midway CV-41.If it's a BB-63 modeling attempt, it is pitiful at best.It ain't the T-AGS 63 USNS Henson, CG 63 Cowpens or DDG 63 Stethem(no other USS #63s), What other country's battlewagons have the 63 designation?I've been around plenty of Navy and other shipping docks and never saw one without mooring bits and ropes anywhere either. That leads me to believe that, whatever it is, it is a model.Sure got my curiosity crankin'! Maybe their "new" marketing strategy will work. ...Don

Actually, it is pretty much the latest thing in advertising, it's called viral marketing, where you get others to spread your message through forums, emails and social networks as opposed to buying media, by creating something controversial or interesting, and since they only did it with one pic (on a social network) and put all the others through their normal advertising medium, it is entirely possible that this was the intent.Al

Look at it this way. The last set of screenshots they posted got 3 threads with some reaching 11 pages in this forum. The "leaked" shot is at page 4. Not working very well if you ask me.

I can understand maybe leaking something would cause some publicity if we were talking about the latest iPhone, but Flight is not even close to that. There are just 10 or 20 people commenting on the pic and maybe a couple hundred or a couple thousand (whatever) looking at the comments in the thread. I would imagine the MS Flight project leadership (no, not all of the resources of Microsoft are working on Flight) are a bit more savvy with marketing. They probably know that all people looking at this thread will eventually buy Flight, except for those who will stay with FS2004. :)

It's not really that detailed of a scene... What could you possibly take away and still justify it as next gen? I like to fly heli's at times and little details make all the difference. With a smooth LOD system and unlimited development time you could easily push much more detail than seen in this shot into the entire world.