...Just for fun.First, FSX with Megascenery Oahu, Bill Womack's Dillingham airfield, and Baytower's Van7 (and ENB bloom mod):FSX_Van1 by wklockner, on FlickrNext, MS Flight:Flight_Van1 by wklockner, on Flickr

Although the FSX shot looks great, there is just something that Flight does right with trees and detail in the distance that gives great "depth perspective" to the landscape. Then there is also the $$$ difference between those two screenshots :Big Grin:

Pretty close...more pics?Overall the real difference is in the airport buildings, Flight's are more detailed

Yes, I agree with Warmbrak. The FSX shot looks brilliant, but FLIGHT's depth perception is better. The scenery perception is much more realistic.

Wow... I like the MS Flight screenshot more! What I immediately notice is the difference in the size of trees! They look far more realistic in MS Flight!EDITI think the depth perception that's mentioned also has a lot to do with the size of the trees.

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by J van E

Flight win.... agree also with the depth perception. If you look at the mountain close, the color are more vibrant and the color fade out for the one at distance. Just this give a much more realistic impression.Building also look more realistic....Trees are not all 100 ft high..... as in real life..clouds... well, we must leave something to improve..... that's on the top of my personnal list for improvement....Runway texture is ok but not patched enough to my taste.... most runways have repair or cracks.... and different shade...But of course, we compare not two exact things.. texture could be different resolution and quality.. but the overall engine characteristic for lighting and depth rendering are obvious improvement...

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by kama2004

Pretty close...more pics?Overall the real difference is in the airport buildings, Flight's are more detailed

Perhaps so, but in all fairness, my sceenshot doesn't really do justice to Bill Womack's work here; the FSX buildings have some nice detailing. And Bill adds the little touches that make the airfield come alive, such as autos, sailplanes, other aircraft, etc. These touches are missing from Flight's depiction of Dillingham so far.My take is that the REX clouds and Womack's detailing of the airfield are superior to what's depicted in MS Flight, while the overall atmosphere, lighting, and terrain are superior in Flight.I probably won't have much time for other comparision shots until tomorrow...want to try PHNL in both Flight and FSX (with FSDT's rendition, of course!). And yes, there is indeed a considerable cost difference at play here in these comparisions.And one more thing...just for more fun, I took a look at Dillingham via Google maps, and Bill has depicted the runway "arrows" (the pavement markings leading up to the touchdown area) more accurately than MS Flight!

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by RudiJG1

I never liked photoreal scenery such as that offered by Megascenery... The Flight terrain looks a little more real in that respect... The clouds in Flight, those little cotton wool balls, look simply silly...It is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other...The two have their merits. My guess is that the BayTower Vans is superior to the Flight one...Andrew

Sure it is comparing one airport add-on with something that covers much more, but still I think that FSX does have little to ashamed of when comparing Dillingham, see the images added below. I find the FLIGHT! Dillingham to be rather lifeless and static.

I have heard from internal sources that we will be seeing dozens of aircraft released over the next few months.We will have a very large selection of aircraft from the DLC.

Great shots, Mathijs...and quite clever, sneaking that wonderful Aerosoft Discus into one of those screenshots!

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by RudiJG1

I look forward to seeing what premium content will be on offer. I consider myself as an all round. I am not on FS long enough each week to call myself even vaguely hardcore, more like what Mathijs calls the "grab a beer and fire up FS for an evening flight somewhere" person...I fly GA (VFR and IFR), medium IFR commercial, warbirds... it will be some time and some cost before I get much satisfaction out of Flight I would say...Though what do I know? I have no sources...Andrew

Wow, those are much better than FLIGHT. Where can i buy that scenery?I do miss the good old 172 in FLIGHT. MIcrosoft made some dull aircraft choices I think. I guess the licences were cheap for a ICON A5 boatplane.

Look for Dillingham at Aerosoft.com. Loads of life in FSX left, lol.But want to know something funny? Yesterday I put a bunch of 14 year olds behind FLIGHT and they all liked it a lot. I tried that a few weeks before with FSX and they simply failed to see why 'we' like it so much. boooooring.... FLIGHT can bring those kids into the hobby. And that is a very very good thing.

I never liked photoreal scenery such as that offered by Megascenery... The Flight terrain looks a little more real in that respect... The clouds in Flight, those little cotton wool balls, look simply silly...It is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other...The two have their merits. My guess is that the BayTower Vans is superior to the Flight one...

From altitude, I really preferred Mega Scenery for Hawaii. There was a good sense of depth, as I looked towards the ground, off the wing. As to the RV, I know that Baytower's is very good. Haven't tried the Flight RV model.......or scenery.

But want to know something funny? Yesterday I put a bunch of 14 year olds behind FLIGHT and they all liked it a lot. I tried that a few weeks before with FSX and they simply failed to see why 'we' like it so much. boooooring.... FLIGHT can bring those kids into the hobby. And that is a very very good thing.

Depends on how you present FSX. I challenged my teenage sister to land a F-18 on carrier (default mission) and she spent hours tirelessly trying to nail it, having a lot of fun while doing it.Microsoft could've very easily created to products with different interfaces for different market segments, one for serious simmers and another, focusing on missions and VFR exploration, for larger audiences. What Microsoft did with Flight is called in Estonian "throwing the baby out with the bath water". There was no need to destroy MSFS to create what Flight is. With a different front-end, even FSX could've very easily been turned into Flight.

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by Paavo