Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

janda

Flight weather - from development team

Recommended Posts

Yes, was just looking at that. 1. The before and after shots. Looks like they have taken existing fsx code into flight then tweaked it 2. That looks so more realistic. 3. Of course if flight relies on Jeppeson weather then you'll never see high clouds and we'll still have huge holes everywhere. I really hope they fix that. 4. Also hope they take into account the change from one weather area to another. They might have great fog effect rolling into the hills but if it appears/disappears instantly, it sort of kills the effect!

Share this post


Link to post

Still, its not much of an improvement over FSX with ASE. It looks like the clouds are still the same FSX 2D spinning puffballs that disappear when you fly into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Still, its not much of an improvement over FSX with ASE. It looks like the clouds are still the same FSX 2D spinning puffballs that disappear when you fly into them.
So you can tell all this from a few screen shots?

Share this post


Link to post
So you can tell all this from a few screen shots?
If it looks the same it probably is the same.... this has been discussed much already in other threads. Flight is just FSX SP3
1. The before and after shots. Looks like they have taken existing fsx code into flight then tweaked it
This is exactly what they have done.

Share this post


Link to post

Bla, bla, bla, bla.............. I think that rock is calling your name again. Wonder if Tom will pay me for arguing with children. Bye all!

Share this post


Link to post
Bla, bla, bla, bla.............. I think that rock is calling your name again.Wonder if Tom will pay me for arguing with children. Bye all!
It's pretty obvious who the children are.

Share this post


Link to post
So you can tell all this from a few screen shots?
Yes. I can tell by looking that my FSX with ASE looks better than the weather in these pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Bla, bla, bla, bla.............. I think that rock is calling your name again. Wonder if Tom will pay me for arguing with children. Bye all!
I wonder why someone who is trying to help sell a product is being publicly critical of people who are the company's core target market and calling them names. I'm a big fan of HiFi products and think you guys have great customer service but you are cetainly generating negative goodwill for the company with some of your recent comments on the Fligh forum.

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder why someone who is trying to help sell a product is being publicly critical of people who are the company's core target market and calling them names. I'm a big fan of HiFi products and think you guys have great customer service but you are cetainly generating negative goodwill for the company with some of your recent comments on the Fligh forum.
Indeed...
It's pretty obvious who the children are.
+1

Share this post


Link to post
Bla, bla, bla, bla.............. I think that rock is calling your name again. Wonder if Tom will pay me for arguing with children. Bye all!
Yeh, bye then, Mr Holier than thou attitude.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I think the updates that MS have made to cloud rendering are a massive improvement, the forecast is looking brighter for Flight simulation :)

Share this post


Link to post

Jim has a point here. The 'Flight is just FSX SP3' comments are shortsighted and only intended to stir up the pot. Don't forget Jim has slightly better knowledge of software development than any of you making these narrow minded claims Talk to the Hand.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Jim has a point here. The 'Flight is just FSX SP3' comments are shortsighted and only intended to stir up the pot. Don't forget Jim has slightly better knowledge of software development than any of you making these narrow minded claims Talk%20to%20the%20Hand.gif
Jim in fact implied that pictures alone where not enough to make any claim; presumably even by him. If Jim said something more along the lines as you suggest it would have been a much more civil way to counter any speculation. Facts and logic are always a better argument than calling people names and it would actually contribute to the conversation rather than detract. I do not see speculating based on limited information as narrow minded. In the end it hurts no one to speculate on what Flight might be based on the available information. If you look at anything that people are passionate about, i.e. take any particular sport, people will read a great deal into any little data point. The phenomenon is not restricted to this particular forum either. Look at any forum regarding any particular piece of hardware or software under development and you will see the exact same thing. Being narrow minded means holding on to a particular belief no matter the facts presented. What is happening here in this forum does not fit that definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Jim has a point here. The 'Flight is just FSX SP3' comments are shortsighted and only intended to stir up the pot. Don't forget Jim has slightly better knowledge of software development than any of you making these narrow minded claims Talk%20to%20the%20Hand.gif
I've been in software development over 20 years and its apparent (to me) that Flight is just an update to the base FSX code and not a rewrite. It looks like FSX, it exhibits the same "bugs" as FSX (eg autogen scale, blurries etc), it exhibits the same deficiencies as FSX (eg no cloud shadows). Also, it makes commercial sense (especially given the economic climate) for Microsoft to leverage the existing FSX code base and give it a 'lick of fresh paint' rather than design/develop a new sim from 'scratch'. Except for the 'market place'/Live integration there is virtually nothing new compared to FSX, so it is fair to consider Flight little more than a "FSX service pack". Maybe "Expansion Pack" is a better term for Flight, just like the FSX Acceleration expansion added a few new features to FSX and included SP2.

Share this post


Link to post
I've been in software development over 20 years and its apparent (to me) that Flight is just an update to the base FSX code and not a rewrite. It looks like FSX, it exhibits the same "bugs" as FSX (eg autogen scale, blurries etc), it exhibits the same deficiencies as FSX (eg no cloud shadows). Also, it makes commercial sense (especially given the economic climate) for Microsoft to leverage the existing FSX code base and give it a 'lick of fresh paint' rather than design/develop a new sim from 'scratch'. Except for the 'market place'/Live integration there is virtually nothing new compared to FSX, so it is fair to consider Flight little more than a "FSX service pack". Maybe "Expansion Pack" is a better term for Flight, just like the FSX Acceleration expansion added a few new features to FSX and included SP2.
It has to be a re-write. How else would they fix the deep rooted problems with multi-core and GPU usuage that were always said to be at the core of FSX's engine? If it's something that could just be fixed they'd of done it in SP2 long ago.

Share this post


Link to post

What we really could do with seeing, in order to determine what Flight is going to be, is some screenies of the GUI. We know it is at least the intention of MS to make it more accessible, presumably not only with features, but also by attending to the slightly austere and scary interface that FS has traditionally had, so I'd be interested in a preview of that, as it might point to what is coming for the more casual user. MS have done some experimenting on that front before, I'm sure we all remember the version of Combat Flight Simulator which had the 'comic book' interface, which was a bold thing to try. Although part of the difference could be in a 'Steam-like' sales model, the other big part will presumably be in what is there for those who don't sit there in a replica 737 cockpit wearing a shirt with Captain's epaulettes on it, i.e. what are they going to do with the Missions and Lessons features that would appeal to the more casually-inclined aeroplane enthusiast? Under the hood it may well be a souped-up FSX with better loading onto CPU cores and the GPU (we hope), and there's nothing wrong with that at all, since most people have spent the last six years complaining about the need for MS to do exactly that, but if they can make Flight appeal to a wider audience with more gamish elements without ruining its ability to suit the hard-core types, then that will do more for flight simming than cloud shadows will, as much as I should like to see those cloud shadows. Al

Share this post


Link to post
It has to be a re-write. How else would they fix the deep rooted problems with multi-core and GPU usuage that were always said to be at the core of FSX's engine? If it's something that could just be fixed they'd of done it in SP2 long ago.
Who says they are fixing those problems? We still see "blurries" in the lastest batch of screenshots (image #7) on the Flight website. It beggars belief that this could be a rewrite and still exhibit the "blurries".

Share this post


Link to post
What we really could do with seeing, in order to determine what Flight is going to be, is some screenies of the GUI. We know it is at least the intention of MS to make it more accessible, presumably not only with features, but also by attending to the slightly austere and scary interface that FS has traditionally had, so I'd be interested in a preview of that, as it might point to what is coming for the more casual user. MS have done some experimenting on that front before, I'm sure we all remember the version of Combat Flight Simulator which had the 'comic book' interface, which was a bold thing to try. Although part of the difference could be in a 'Steam-like' sales model, the other big part will presumably be in what is there for those who don't sit there in a replica 737 cockpit wearing a shirt with Captain's epaulettes on it, i.e. what are they going to do with the Missions and Lessons features that would appeal to the more casually-inclined aeroplane enthusiast? Under the hood it may well be a souped-up FSX with better loading onto CPU cores and the GPU (we hope), and there's nothing wrong with that at all, since most people have spent the last six years complaining about the need for MS to do exactly that, but if they can make Flight appeal to a wider audience with more gamish elements without ruining its ability to suit the hard-core types, then that will do more for flight simming than cloud shadows will, as much as I should like to see those cloud shadows. Al
+1,Don't be surprise if Flight is still using DX9 at release.....just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
It has to be a re-write. How else would they fix the deep rooted problems with multi-core and GPU usuage that were always said to be at the core of FSX's engine? If it's something that could just be fixed they'd of done it in SP2 long ago.
Sadly, this no longer has to be fixed completely to have acceptable performance, as hardware has been improving over the last five years since FSX was released. As such, it probably will not be fixed completely. On the subject of rewrites, my view is that unless you start fresh with a new concept and keep only very low-level utilities from your old project, the new project is not a rewrite. If Flight were a complete rewrite of even a single sub-system, I would be surprised. It is possible that the UI will look different and there will be new features, but the old code will be under the hood. Unfortunately, this code is very old in the tooth and has remnants from the time of the dinosaurs (computer wise). If you poke around in some of the DLLs, you will find that constants that should have the same values (Earth's radii) are different in some DLLs. You will further see that data is massaged in a myriad of ways - converted from int to float, to double to 48-bit int and back to double again in many places. I suspect that all these conversions are full of bugs, which lead to visual and hidden anomalies, such as the meandering VC camera in planes where the eyepoint is far from the plane origin. A true rewrite would get rid of all these problems and be a lean and mean up-to-date piece of code, taking advantage of the latest technologies available through the CPUs or the GPUs in a system. You will find that as FSX was not a rewrite of FS9, Flight will not be a rewrite in any major way of FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Bla, bla, bla, bla.............. I think that rock is calling your name again. Wonder if Tom will pay me for arguing with children. Bye all!
What's his problem? Kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder why someone who is trying to help sell a product is being publicly critical of people who are the company's core target market and calling them names. I'm a big fan of HiFi products and think you guys have great customer service but you are cetainly generating negative goodwill for the company with some of your recent comments on the Fligh forum.
Agreed, it's corporate suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...