Really? You have all those problems with FSX? Wow. Check the forums and you can get that fixed.I see no point in trying flight. Waste of time and hard drive space IMHO.

Isn't that the point you have to go and fix FSX and even then it's arguable that it will be ok. Flight runs beautifully out the box and I for one can say the landscape is crystal clear, very detailed and smooth at a level far beyond what FSX default could hope for. Your reply indicates a predetermined decision and thats a pity as Flight is so much fun and very nice to look at.Cheers,Dave.

Lets call them moderate graphical improvements rather than minor. Some things, like the lighting, remind us how old the fsx engine is. The smoothness and relative lack of autogen pop-up are pleasing.The simplicity of startup and a clean interface with minimal loading times are a joy for when you want a quick flight.The graphics fall down in a couple of areas. Some of the clouds look fake. As2012 or rex clearly win at the moment.The tile-based graphics suffer from the problems that tile-based graphics have - the world is fake when you look carefully. And from up high it looks pretty average, like FSX does. Above a few thousand feet my fsx+megascenery+newport looks better, photoscenery matches the terrain contours of those volcanic ridges in a way tiles never will.

If you had everything, then what would be the point of dlc... :P proper sky textures of course would have balooned the download size and made further dlc content less attractive so i'm not surprised the current set is probably not even fsx standard. Generally I'm really please with how Flight looks. For those who have Flight, looking at the coast in the missing kayak mission is breathtaking to behold both outbound and inbound flights, better than any coastal views I've seen in FSX, just wonderful definition and detail!Cheers,Dave.

All I know is I haven't opened up FSX since this was released.. I don't care how many arguments and spec flinging is flung. This is more engaging, more inviting, more atmospheric and has more of a sense of real flight for me right out of the box. That speaks more volume to me then how much I can add to a shopping cart because I haven't spent $1,000s on makeup to dress up a pig.

I am also more and more surprised about the details everywhere. The coasts are awesome indeed and so ar the canyons and the mountains. I love the colors and textures of those. But I also keep on discovering how detailed airports and cities often are: like the island with Honolulu and Pearl Harbor... when flying high over it all it may look a bit grey and like a bunch of blocks, but down low you see the detail is stunning. In fact the detail all around is SO stunning that the 20 bucks I paid for it seems to be less and less... After lfying around the islands for a week now I came to the conclusion that 20 dollas is almost free. A gift. Compare this to any addon airport for FSX that probably costs more and offers far less. The large airports absolutely look stunning and the performance is incredible. Of course AI is missed there a lot... But just circle around one of the large airport and look at the texturing...20 dollars for the Adventure pack really is a steal.

Yeah, just for this exact reason above, I am really looking forward to all the DLCs that get released. This game is stunning! I am tempted to buy another graphics card for SLI just so it can run better!

Yeah, just for this exact reason above, I am really looking forward to all the DLCs that get released. This game is stunning! I am tempted to buy another graphics card for SLI just so it can run better!

You may want to double think that, not sure this sim benefits any at all from SLI, and from a couple of posts here, may degrade performance. You might want to wait and see more feedback on this one as time goes by, unless you do a lot of other games that would benefit from it.

I know it is somewhat subjective, but last night i loaded up both Flight and FSX and flew up the slope of Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaii. In all respects, detail, clarity, scenery mesh, clouds etc. FSX landscape looked so much more dimensional and like I remember it. FS flight was kind of fuzzy and more like a two dimensional photo. Look for yourself...MS FlightFSX

You may want to double think that' date=' not sure this sim benefits any at all from SLI, and from a couple of posts here, may degrade performance. You might want to wait and see more feedback on this one as time goes by, unless you do a lot of other games that would benefit from it.[/quote']Yeah i did just see a few posts that indicated that. I am getting a few stutters. Obviously I want to have a really detailed game, but am a little confused about the graphics options and what they mean. They all seem very similar! What are the best options to set to low for me?

Yeah i did just see a few posts that indicated that. I am getting a few stutters. Obviously I want to have a really detailed game, but am a little confused about the graphics options and what they mean. They all seem very similar! What are the best options to set to low for me?

Two graphic options that have little bang for the buck so to speak are:Shadow QualityScenery DensityI was running everything as high as I could get, these two were at maximum. I was getting very good performance, last night I was flying the Kayake rescue mission, and noticed when I would look at the exterior fly by view along the coast there, I would see some slight stuttering. I paused the game by going into graphic options, reduced these two items from Maximum to High, resumed the flight and the stuttering was pretty much gone viewing the same fly by view. And the sim still looks awesome to me, others might notice but to my aging eyes I really can't see a difference in what I am looking at by reducing those two...

I really can't see a difference in what I am looking at by reducing those two...

In Shadow Quality, but certainly not in Scenery Density. With Density set to Max, autogens are drawn to a much larger radius and as result distant forest, mountain, slope would be covered with vegetation. If set to high, the same area would be very sparsely populated. Same applies for city. If you go to Waipio valley, you can see the dramatic different it makes.

In Shadow Quality, but certainly not in Scenery Density. With Density set to Max, autogens are drawn to a much larger radius and as result distant forest, mountain, slope would be covered with vegetation. If set to high, the same area would be very sparsely populated. Same applies for city. If you go to Waipio valley, you can see the dramatic different it makes.

Ah ok must be my aging eyes then - many of you notice things that I never even notice... I may change that one back to Max anyway as overall my performance is still very good.Thanks,

FSX landscape looked so much more dimensional and like I remember it. FS flight was kind of fuzzy and more like a two dimensional photo.

In my opinion, it is the other way around. If you look at the tree on top of those hill/mountain, you would notice that they are ridiculously oversized in FSX and sparsely populated. In Flight, they are more natural in size and cover the hilltop like it should be in real life. This gives really good depth realism as some have already mentioned. Also, the trees lacks any definition in FSX when compared to Flight, they look more like a blob.

Others have already answered how - but this is one of the great things about Flight! I landed on Ford Island and walked over to (yes, including walking on water) the Arizona Memorial. Couldn't get up the docking ramp and inside, but was able to walk around it. Received an aerocache award - but the best part was, having been there many times, how "right" it felt.Also, Stephen, I want to say "thank you" to you and several others for your positive, meaningful, and well thought out posts before the forum closure. Flight is definitely not "all it can be" yet, but it's a blast to fly and it has great potential!

Thank you for such kindness. To me it was kind of obvious that Flight is still in the cradle.Kind regards,

In my opinion, it is the other way around. If you look at the tree on top of those hill/mountain, you would notice that they are ridiculously oversized in FSX and sparsely populated. In Flight, they are more natural in size and cover the hilltop like it should be in real life. This gives really good depth realism as some have already mentioned. Also, the trees lacks any definition in FSX when compared to Flight, they look more like a blob.

yesterday i landed on top of a clifts and walk around . not only i could hear the wind but also the threes were moving with the wind :-0 .......

Look for yourself...

Funny, just like sibtiger I also think it's the other way around... Even when I only compare your screenshots...! FSX looks flat while MS Flight had depth...!

Two graphic options that have little bang for the buck so to speak are:Shadow QualityScenery Density

The difference between Scenery Density at High and Maximum is that Max gives you a larger LOD. The autogen around you is the exact same as with high, but it stretches out a bit more in the distance. However, loading times are a LOT longer at Max, so I noticed! I have it set to High because I don't really notice the difference (unless I compare the settings of course) and because I have read that the Maximum settings causes more apparent popup.Afaik Shadow at Max also simply gives you extra shadows in the distance: I also have that one at High because I don't notice the difference and it seems ti have an impact on performance. (Performance is great on my pc, buttersmooth, but I do get blurries, so if I don't really need those Max settings, I rather not use them.)