If Hawaii is the big deal with MS Flight, surely we should be comparing like for like with what we have? FSX Mega Hawaii, looks good to me ... I know I'm going against the grain again here, but I've honestly not seen an honest screen shot from MS about Flight that dropped my jaw yet ... and I'm ignoring the famous FSX DX10 screenie and some of the cherry picked ones from MS recently ... they have lied before and cant be trusted IMHO. It goes without saying that everything we have seen so far about the new MS Flight seems like they are making it up as they go along, the fake battleship close up, concentrating on Hawaii only ?) Why? (why did they pull that battleship shot all of a sudden?) It was faked is why. As always there are more questions than answers with MS, they don't inspire confidence ... unless you are part of the In Crowd or are a dedicated a really excited user who defends what they do to the hilt :) Lets work this out, even if MS don't drop this one (their current management dropped a lot in our hobby) even if this makes it to the stores or virtual stores as they propose ... Its going to be some time before this sim matures with add ons. I know a lot of us think this will be the holy grail for our passion and automatically say so ... I used to do that too, but now at age 52 I'm a wee bit wiser. I'm going off tangent, but MS dumped us before, they can do it again ... I for one have invested in a lot of money in FS hardware over the years, as always MS don't want to talk about this ... its a very reasonable question IMHO, but if you go to the other side of the fence and ask ... Say Aerosoft, they say they will support said hardware, same with X-plane 10, its the lack of openness and trust in customers about this new venture that once again makes me doubt their passion ... and lets be clear about this, its not a passion for them any-more, just an exercise in keeping a successful series going ... They dropped the ball quite a while ago ... it will be interesting to see if they can pick up the ball again, early indications are they have picked it up, looked at it and don't quite know what to do any-more? Ive been yapping, but yeah ... MS are keen to show us current Hawaii shots, to be honest they don't look very special, what's wrong with FSX and Mega scenery Hawaii, this came out back in 2008 BTW ... how long will it take the likes of Aerosoft (who have publicly dumped MS Flight) to trust them again? Here we go ... I know its the same old FS9 vs FSX story, but to be honest I'm an enthusiast who welcomed FSX from the get go ... MS Flight is going to have to be very very special to beat it ... and in hindsight I don't think they can pull it off anymore, witness the revolution in FS2000 to 2002 for a clue its not always progress in this series. I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope Avsim and myself are still alive to prove me right or wrong ... but in ten years time I doubt very much MS Flight (if they dont cull it again) will still be the standard ... it will still be FSX ... we still have some FS9 reluctant to go to FSX Stalwarts ... But Oh Boy ... I bet the transition to Flight will not be the same ... we've mostly reached a sort of Plato in FS were we can finally run things at a proper pace ... I'm currently running an I7 SB 2600K rig at almost 5GHz, SSD's ETC ... I'm a happy camper :)

I disagree FSX has so many internal limitations that it wouldn't be all that difficult to make Flight much more capable than FSX, things like sceneries, textures, mesh etc are just icing on the cake. If Flight dev team make the internals correctly we will see amazing things from 3rd parties that were never possibile in FSX. This is also from someone who jumped to FSX ASAP and am still enjoying it thoroughly. I personally will buy Flight right away but probably wont embrace it fully until it gets some good payware, especially aircrafts (PMDG etc).

Katana, you still don't seem to get it. You can't compare a scenery package for one location to a sim that has a whole world of scenery. It simply isn't right. To be honest, the Flight scenery looks better than what you posted because it has autogen as far as the eye can see. I'd rather have better/accurate landclasses with autogen then worldwide photo scenery any day. It just looks better. Like Viper said, FSX has many limitations. And it's just getting old. We need something new that can actually use our modern hardware to its fullest. And the whole thing about not trusting Microsoft is sillybecause they didn't even mean to release the DX 10 preview shot, so they really didn't lie. There's a lot of other reasons why to never trust them...I won't go into detail because I don't want to turn this thread into a Microsoft-bashing thread.

What they should try to achieve is a more resource friendly engine (a new one would be great in general!) and, as Jay already mentioned, an engine, developers can connect to easily. Nobody expects the simulator to be ultra fantastic and detailed out of the box - it's the developers that spice it up with any new version. We need a completely new engine!

HE IS BAAAAAACK

HE IS BAAAAAACK

He ran out of food!

If Hawaii is the big deal with MS Flight, surely we should be comparing like for like with what we have?

Then compare the Flight screenshots with ones for the same area from default FSX.

Then compare the Flight screenshots with ones for the same area from default FSX.

Yeah....oh wait, I already did. But seriously, comparing default to default is better.

Yeah....oh wait, I already did. But seriously, comparing default to default is better.

Which will only be possible once Flight is released. Regards, Mike Mann

Then compare the Flight screenshots with ones for the same area from default FSX.

No I disagree, because that is not the current situation most hardcore simmers are in right now. They have addon sceneries aircraft, utilities etc... I'm not going to upgrade to Flight because it's better then FSX Default, I have that now. What I want to see is an improvement on the current technology used in FSX. So I think this comparison is fair, as well as those from GEX/UTX shots.

No I disagree, because that is not the current situation most hardcore simmers are in right now. They have addon sceneries aircraft, utilities etc... I'm not going to upgrade to Flight because it's better then FSX Default, I have that now. What I want to see is an improvement on the current technology used in FSX. So I think this comparison is fair, as well as those from GEX/UTX shots.

Agree, FSX with good add-ons is not bad at all and since we are use to good add-ons we will need to compare Flight add-ons with FSX add-ons.

No. It makes no sense. Microsoft Flight is representing the whole world. Do you expect ANY worldwide flight sim to ever have the detail everywhere of an add-on for ONE SMALL LOCATION? No, it will not happen....not for many years, at least. So, it is silly to compare FSX with add-ons to default Flight. The point of comparing is to see the technological advancements to the engine more than just to compare pretty scenery. That's why you have to compare default to default. I hate to "force my opinion on others," but it really just doesn't make any sense. LOL

No. It makes no sense. Microsoft Flight is representing the whole world. Do you expect ANY worldwide flight sim to ever have the detail everywhere of an add-on for ONE SMALL LOCATION? No, it will not happen....not for many years, at least. So, it is silly to compare FSX with add-ons to default Flight. The point of comparing is to see the technological advancements to the engine more than just to compare pretty scenery. That's why you have to compare default to default. I hate to "force my opinion on others," but it really just doesn't make any sense. LOL

While I agree with you with limited area addon scenery, I think it is fair to compare FLIGHT scenery against the more wide area scenery such as GEX/UTX and photo scenery that cover a large region, like Sim Savvy. Mega Scenery is probably too localized though to do a fair comparison. BTW so far there is no evidence that FLIGHT will cover the whole world, all we have seen is Hawaii. With FLIGHT being a Windows Live title, it's possible the rest of the world will be released as addons. Obviously I hope that isn't the case, but right now we don't know!

No. It makes no sense. Microsoft Flight is representing the whole world. Do you expect ANY worldwide flight sim to ever have the detail everywhere of an add-on for ONE SMALL LOCATION? No, it will not happen....not for many years, at least. So, it is silly to compare FSX with add-ons to default Flight. The point of comparing is to see the technological advancements to the engine more than just to compare pretty scenery. That's why you have to compare default to default. I hate to "force my opinion on others," but it really just doesn't make any sense. LOL

Do you have any proof that what we are seeing from Flight is Hawaii default and not something enhanced from a third party developer? or that nice battleship is not something we can add to Flight for $1.50? EDIT: and if I understand you correctly we can't compare ONE SMALL FSX ADD-ON LOCATION to Flight because Flight is representing the whole world, so you are telling us that Flight will look like Hawaii screenshots all over the world? if this is not the case we can compare Flight's Hawaii with one small location right....so which one is it cause you can't have it both way.....will Flight look like Hawaii all over the world so we can't compare ONE SMALL LOCATION or is Flight Hawaii an enhanced part of Flight so we can compare it with ONE SMALL LOCATION...don't you hate when you are force to make a decision on something......

Seriously. How many times do we need to reboot this conversation.