What improvements does Flight have over FSX?

[Gibbage 199]

My current goal it to fly to and land at every airport on the islands. Even the dirt strips! Im always suprised by the detail they put into it! I havent found one "cookie cutter" airport yet. Even the dirt strips each have there own personality!!!

[Guest]

As far as the detail of the airports is concerned: I am really curious if they can keep up that detail with Alaska (more airports) and even more if they are going to do some US region... There are sooooooo many airports there!BTW I am also curious how they will deal with different autogen and textures in various regions. In FSX a lot of stuff was used all over the world and Orbx had to find a way to be able to use regional textures, a way which prevent you from flying from one region to another (AU to PNW that is). But of course we don't know yet if we will be able to fly from one region to another in MS Flight.

[remilton 66]

And there is no problems what so ever with what you like.Be safe flying.

Agreed! Everyone gets along when you respect your neighbors opinion and free speech allows each to express their own.

[eliyahu 0]

This may not be true for everyone, but for me the reason I enjoy flying is because of the scenery and my interaction with it. That's one reason I like FLIGHT.Just operating a machine (airplane) and fumbling with switches & variables, while may be a bit fun, isn't as interesting to me as flying through the air and taking in the awesome beauty and majesty of what (in my view) was given to us by our Heavenly Father to enjoy and stand in awe of :) If I can't afford a plane & the fuel to fly around, this may be the next best thing.

[gtrbarbarian 1]

Yes! Being able to use the Windows-key to switch to another program AND being able to get back to MS Flight without ANY problems is a blessing. No more 'alt-enter-and-hopefully-it-won't-lock-up' or 'I-do-hear-my-plane-but-I-still-see-the-desktop-HELP!' And no matter what I do performance stays solid. Love that.

Agreed. I don't miss the instability of FSX + various add-ons not playing right causing FSX to CTD 2 hours into a 4 hour flight. That has been maddening at times. However, is it really a compliment to Microsoft that Flight is liked because they fixed all of the bugs inherent in FSX? When you release an SDK (fsx) for external developers to use, you are supposed to stress test it and iron out bugs caused by 15 (potentially more) add-ons hitting the SDK at once. This was not done with FSX, which is more than a mere over-site on Microsoft's part, it is an abandonment.I like Flight alot.it does many things right. After a week of playing Flight, and running many of the missions and challenges, just my opinion, Flight's graphics are imho not that much better than FSX with utx,gex, rex water and AS2012. I have been flying Hawaii in both Flight and FSX. To me FSX seems more alive. Yes, of course Flight runs smoother since the engine has been made to use GPU, still I prefer FSX. They honestly run just about equally as smooth on my i5-2500k/hd 6950/16gb.I do much prefer the map in Flight, as it's much much easier to see and use. I like the lighting effects in Flight better, and overall there are less blurries in Flight. I do see photo scenery underneath the autogen in Flight, and it's blurry and flat just like all photo scenery. You have to be looking really close to notice though!I do like that Flight seems to provide a path of learning for the newbie pilot who is newly stepping into the flight sim genre. The fact that it performs out of the box and allows an easy path for a beginner to learn the rudiments of flight will be a huge plus in not driving beginners away with complexity. Microsoft knows that its target audience does not RTM (needed in FSX missions), and that showing instead of reading will get the end user far closer to actually using the flight sim. Edited March 6, 2012 by gtrbarbarian

[gtrbarbarian 1]

I'm beginning to really like the challenges. Many of the small strips are extremely challenging, as they are nested in trees. Much the same reason for me liking PNW: all of the tiny remote air strips.I also like the fact that I can setup an approach just by dragging my plane on the map...great feature....I like it better than skewing...I'm having major trouble seeing runway lights at night in Flight however, which makes it very difficult to land!

[doomtrainuk 0]

Do not argue about what you can do with FSX, just make a vid and show us.

oh sweet ******* ive lost my fsx disks and cant play it until i can order new ones, and watching this video has made it more unbearable ...that is AMAZINGp

[Robdotcom71 0]

Careful. If you don't park the plane in a safe spot, it can roll away, and you might never see it again.

LOL.. that happened to me on the top of Mauna Kea by the observatory... I thought I'd land and then take a walk around and take a tonne of screenshots... the moment I got out the RV6 rolled down the hill.... lol

[jjjallen 37]

Here are a few more improvements over FSX that I noticed recently:1) Water that really looks and acts like water. Pay attention to the ocean waves with light wind and you will see random white caps that actually curl over. Really sweet!2) Incredible models of airport buildings and vehicles. The fire engines just blow me away. (now if they would only move.)3) Excellent blending of roads, taxiways and runways. This was a real bummer in FSX.4) Landing the ICON is so realistic that you really feel like you are flying - and that is with mouse control.5) Trees that blow in the wind and don't look like a cross when viewed from above. Another big negative for me in FSX.6) Aircraft textures are exceptional even with medium settings. The exterior and panel of the ICON are just amazing with absolutely no aliasing. That is on my relatively low powered Intel integrated GPU.Lately I've been exploring at ground level with the walk-around view. Everything looks awesome.I'm thinking (and hoping) that traffic will be added in stages, vehicles, air, marine and even people. I suspect that vehicle traffic speed will be based on the road type with variable speeds with acceleration and slowdown effects. No more negotiating 90 degree turns at 50 MPH ala FSX. Can't wait.ATC will also be a sub project IMO and will be much more realistic and natural than the FSX version. You can just imagine the work involved to pull this off and why it is a separate project.Finally a good reason why there is no Flight SDK yet is because Flight is not yet finished. If MS was able to market the FSX gaming engine then they will surely be aiming the same for the Flight engine so an SDK will be required to pull that off.Keep it coming MS - you are off to a great start!Cheersjja

[Guest]

That is on my relatively low powered Intel integrated GPU.I'm thinking (and hoping) that traffic will be added in stages, vehicles, air, marine and even people. I suspect that vehicle traffic speed will be based on the road type with variable speeds with acceleration and slowdown effects. No more negotiating 90 degree turns at 50 MPH ala FSX. Can't wait.ATC will also be a sub project IMO and will be much more realistic and natural than the FSX version. You can just imagine the work involved to pull this off and why it is a separate project.Finally a good reason why there is no Flight SDK yet is because Flight is not yet finished. If MS was able to market the FSX gaming engine then they will surely be aiming the same for the Flight engine so an SDK will be required to pull that off.

I also hope for traffic and ATC, but be prepared your 'low powered Intel integrated GPU' may not be up to the task... MS Flight is quit 'light' when it comes to what it does and adding all the things you mentioned is sure to have a huge impact on performance.ANd the ONLY reason there is no SDK is that MS decided to not release one and develop everything in the house. It has nothing to do with the game not being ready: it's simply a decision they made.

[quadraspleen 7]

Even buying the NGX couldn't rekindle my interest in it.Flight, on the other hand......

I'm flying both alternately..They both hold real interest for me (and woe for my wife LOL) I really don't see them as mutually incompatible any more than owning a car and a bicycle..I love NGX. I really enjoy the immediacy and FUN of Flight after a heavy day at work - Anyway, in two or three years time Flight will be FSX I reckon - (flame me then, not now LOL)bestjake

[A380 0]

Anyway, in two or three years time Flight will be FSX I reckon

My thoughts exactly

[trevorbee 0]

Short and sweet.FLIGHT is good and will only get better.MY graphics card does not do it justice but I now know what I am getting for Christmas.Unfortunately, at this stage MS does not have the confidence to share their vision of what FLIGHT could become with us but, hopefully, the generally positive reception they are receiving will encourage them to open up.

[danieirch 0]

to quote: armchairpil0tNewbie

• 
• Members
• 
• 39 posts
• 0 reviews
• 6 topics
• Joined 04-August 07

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:20 PM

Glad you are enjoying it, because I am not.I installed it on a 4 year old PC (AMD AthlonX2), and Flight produces a lower frame rate than FSX. I only get fluid movement with no discernible individual frames if set all graphics to low. With FSX, I get decent 25-30FPS with medium graphics settings, no chance for this in Flight. So I am certainly not getting a smoother experience than with FSX.

i have noticed a complete opposite effect.... i have a laptop with an AMD E450 APU (1.65GHz dual core) AMD Radeon 630 and 4gb DDR3 RAM and Flight runs very smoothly at medium settings on this laptop, whereas FSX runs semi smoothly only on low settings! :S It's confusing, however i am enjoying flight, but it's not a flight simulator and i miss FSX, even if i only get 20fps :( i wish ms would release some jets, 737 maybe, there are some improvements, but to me it just looks a bit like a jumped up version of x :/ disappointed!

[dburne 2]

to quote: armchairpil0tNewbie

• 
• Members
• 
• 39 posts
• 0 reviews
• 6 topics
• Joined 04-August 07

625]

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:20 PM

Glad you are enjoying it, because I am not.I installed it on a 4 year old PC (AMD AthlonX2), and Flight produces a lower frame rate than FSX. I only get fluid movement with no discernible individual frames if set all graphics to low. With FSX, I get decent 25-30FPS with medium graphics settings, no chance for this in Flight. So I am certainly not getting a smoother experience than with FSX.

i have noticed a complete opposite effect.... i have a laptop with an AMD E450 APU (1.65GHz dual core) AMD Radeon 630 and 4gb DDR3 RAM and Flight runs very smoothly at medium settings on this laptop, whereas FSX runs semi smoothly only on low settings! :S It's confusing, however i am enjoying flight, but it's not a flight simulator and i miss FSX, even if i only get 20fps i wish ms would release some jets, 737 maybe, there are some improvements, but to me it just looks a bit like a jumped up version of x :/ disappointed!

Well personally I don't think Flight is any version of FSX, nor was it designed to be. Perhaps initially in the early stages, but that is not the direction they took with this product for the release of it.I view them as two different products, that do two different things.I have seen many that just could not get into the complexity and depth of previous versions of MSFS, come back to civilian flight with this release of Flight, and enjoying it.I have seen several that do get into, and enjoy, the complexity of previous versions, that have downloaded Flight, found they enjoy it , and are enjoying the heck out of both sims - I would fall into that category.I have seen several that are into the complexity of previous versions, and that is all they want, and either tried Flight and were greatly dissappointed, or not even try Flight because they have a good idea of what it is, by reading the forums.The bottom line though is, two very different products that do very different things - which just gives us, the flight sim enthusiast, more to choose from.So there are some things that Flight does better in, and some things FSX does better in, but very different in concept.