Since FS2000, the FS series has used the Olson land classification. The data was already defined in a 1 kilometer grid, so the Aces just used that data, and that size.Just changing the grid to 1/2 kilometer would allow for much more landclass accuracy, but the data size would quadruple.Adding land classifications beyond the Olson set would allow much more variation, at little cost for file size. And, if local folder content can override the global landclass table, we'd have complete control over not only textures, but allow new classifications at the developer's whim.Just day-dreaming. None of the FS ttles were designed with 3rd party developers in mind. There is little consideration for reworking the sims.As far as blending, the textures of former sims used blendmasks. I think that would continue.Dick

Keeping in mind that Microsoft are supposedly re-writing the code. Maybe just for performance, who knows what else..

I think it's "funny" that the same people who second guess Microsoft, and who don't believe anything MS says or presents (a la the "magic screenies" non-story) suddenly take this bit of ambiguous information as though it were etched on the same stone as the Ten Commandments.Why, of all the other information made available by MS, do you choose this single bit of info as the only one you believe?P.S. I'm using the word "you" as a generic term to represent all the people who latch onto the 10 vs 14GB argument, not you specifically.

10GB could be a minimum requirement not a maximum requirement. 10GB could also mean 12 or 14 or even 15GB. Who knows.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by kelvinr

10GB wouldn't even cover my current mesh installs...

10 Gb can be only for a small area (North America or smaler) and the rest of the world can use more disk space and be downloadable (free, pay ?).

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Marcoh

10 GB are for missions stuff only within the Hawaii only ( 2 major islands only of course, the ones where there is Honolulu and Hilo only of course )

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Mark II

10 Gb can be only for a small area (North America or smaler) and the rest of the world can use more disk space and be downloadable (free, pay ?).

Check a default FS9 installation.(Even with jets included)

Out of all the information made available by Microsoft, this is one of the few that is a number. A number is something one can interpret with a fair amount of confidence. If, for instance, Microsoft gave us a number for how many airports Flight will include, we could clear up a tremendous amount of speculation with that number alone. Unless you are suggesting that we shouldn't believe the number that Microsoft posted.

When that number was released Flight wasn't even in beta yet (it still isn't). They are still hiring aircraft designers and project managers for the game, which says the final game is nowhere near finished.How in the world would they have had a specific number for how big the final product would be so early? They wouldn't. What they listed was not framed as "system requirements" but a breakdown of what systems they were using to test the game out at the time. It was more likely just the size of the Alpha they were using at the time. It may be right or it may be very wrong. Stop taking it as gospel.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by bonchie

How in the world would they have had a specific number for how big the final product would be so early?

That one's easy actually, as determined by current media capacity: 25 or 50 GBy with Blu-Ray (unlikely) or 16 GBy with 2x double-sided DVDs (quite likely).Cheers,- jahman.

maybe their use of file compression has improved.

maybe their use of file compression has improved.

Considering that many feel Microsoft over-compressed their mesh files in FSX and that the standard hard drive of today is much larger than the ones that were standard when FSX was released, I'm not so sure of the validity of this statement.

Compression could be done but would either mean a loss of quality or an uncompression method that consumes cpu power.

It was possible to use disk compression with FS9 scenery, but FSX doesn't like it.

That one's easy actually, as determined by current media capacity: 25 or 50 GBy with Blu-Ray (unlikely) or 16 GBy with 2x double-sided DVDs (quite likely).Cheers,- jahman.

I'm not sure how your statement just answered any question I posed.The maximum storage of certain media doesn't confirm nor deny the 10gb number being accurate.

I'm not sure how your statement just answered any question I posed.The maximum storage of certain media doesn't confirm nor deny the 10gb number being accurate.

Nothing confirms or denies anything about a product we have almost no news about. That said, the capacity of available media will determine the size of Flight as shipped. That's fairly obvious.Cheers,- jahman.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by jahman

That one's easy actually, as determined by current media capacity: 25 or 50 GBy with Blu-Ray (unlikely) or 16 GBy with 2x double-sided DVDs (quite likely).Cheers,- jahman.

I would agree that that the dual layer option is likely. Remember when FS2004 was out?? It was about 2GB (compressed of course) on 4 cd's. Then, FSX, 2 DVD's. So, if Flight has 1 dual layer or 3 dvd's it wouldn't surprise me. Either way I have faith in them that they will not provide FSX over again otherwise, if they do, then i'm going to go train to be a monk and live the quiet life.

I would agree that that the dual layer option is likely. Remember when FS2004 was out?? It was about 2GB (compressed of course) on 4 cd's. Then, FSX, 2 DVD's. So, if Flight has 1 dual layer or 3 dvd's it wouldn't surprise me. Either way I have faith in them that they will not provide FSX over again otherwise, if they do, then i'm going to go train to be a monk and live the quiet life.

Are Blu-Ray readers as widespread today as DVD readers were in 2004? Probably not, as determined by Blu-Ray reader price,Cheers,- jahman.