Guys this blew me away last night so I have to get as many of you to try this as possible. Since the base version of Flight is free, download it and let us know does it not run better than FS9 or your older hardware all the while looking better than FSX. You can turn all the gamey stuff off and just fly in a world that is on the level of Orbix and get better framerates than you get in FS9. I've never seen a release of FS able to accomplish something like this. We would've been doing good if a new system of the day of release ran FS9/FS2k2 good but two or three year old systems running a new version of Flight Simulator 'well' is unprecedented.I just want to see if this is not just me... Critisizem aside about Flight being a game because once you turn that hud crap off and set those flight models to 'realistic' (after the first two forced mission you have to accomplish) your going to be amazed. This is the base platform we've been waiting on, Microsoft just needs to finish this thing and include third party developers.FS9er's who can't even think about installing FSX need to try this, trust me... :(

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by Dillon

Kinda just makes me more upset that this isn't the global sim we all wanted. Flying around Hawaii and no forseable support from the big devs just puts me off. Glad your enjoying tho! I guess this should be in hanger chat?

Kinda just makes me more upset that this isn't the global sim we all wanted. Flying around Hawaii and no forseable support from the big devs just puts me off.Glad your enjoying tho! I guess this should be in hanger chat?

I agree and you'll be even more ticked off if you tried this thing. Being a real pilot I can attest to the Flight models accuracy. All I say is try it and from there maybe we'll all have to put up a petition for Microsoft to finish this thing, do some all nighters at Redmond... :( The performance in this thing just blows me away and it's superiority over FSX in the visual department is amazing especially on a 3+ year old system like mine... :(

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by Dillon

I have been keeping an eye on Flight and it will definitely be my GA VFR sim of choice. The immersion blows me away from what I have seen so far, can't wait to run it on a 50" LCD!But good old FS9 and FSX will be my main sim for flying complex heavy metal for a long time I guess. Regarding fps, both fs9 and fsx run smooth as silk on my setup.Regards

FS9Dell Duo Core 2.66 1333FSBWindows 7 Pro 64Bit SP14Gigs RamNVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 w/1gig Memory

Dillon, You run fsx with this system? How is it?

Regarding fps, both fs9 and fsx run smooth as silk on my setup

I'd like to know more about your setup if you don't mind. Im gathering info as i'm planning to rebuild my setup.Dillon's positive words are very encouraging. However, I thought I could find "peace" in this FS2004 forum as people are busy arguing about fooling around in Hawaii out there. regards

I have been keeping an eye on Flight and it will definitely be my GA VFR sim of choice. The immersion blows me away from what I have seen so far, can't wait to run it on a 50" LCD!But good old FS9 and FSX will be my main sim for flying complex heavy metal for a long time I guess.Regarding fps, both fs9 and fsx run smooth as silk on my setup.Regards

I by no means am giving up FS9 but this calls in to question moving to FSX for me. You must have a newer system than mine as I know FSX will not run well on my current system. I knew it was crap that one needed such hardware to run FSX. Machines need 8+ gigs of Ram, i7 cores, and who know what else to approach the performance of FS9. FSX like FS2000 was a badly coded piece of software hands down. In true fashion one bad release followed a stellar release of Flight Simulator. After FS2000 came FS2k2. After FSX came Flight which could have been FS11 covering the whole world. Just the same we can see what FS11 was going to be if it had been finished.

Dillon, You run fsx with this system? How is it?Dillon's positive words are very encouraging. However, I thought I could find "peace" in this FS2004 forum as people are busy arguing about fooling around in Hawaii out there.regards

I 'can not' run FSX on my system, never said I could. Flight by contrast runs better than FS9 on my system all the while looking better than FSX.Concerning peace I'm asking people who've been stuck with a 10 year old piece of software (because FSX was such a dog) to try something that'll blow their socks off. This video convinced me to give Flight a shot and it's worth it to spread the word and blow away myths we all had about this new release.

I for one am going to give credit where it's do and if a development team has pull off something the older development team said was impossible I tip my hat to them. I'll also admit I was wrong and try to steer everyone who's waited for so many years for something decent to try this out. I for one am blown away and FS9ers of anyone should give this thing a look if nothing more than to see what's possible today on 'machines of yesterday' and not the old tired line of 'it was created for machine of the future' which was FSX's excuse...

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by Dillon

Are you trolling us? Maybe not. Don't know if you should compare FS9 to Flight. Maybe compare it to Blazing Angles 2 on Xbox but not FS9 nor FSX. If Flight is outperforming FS9, may I suggest you try some tweaks. Start by disabling all AI, removing ATC, and stop using real world weather with 3 cloud layers. Pick the fair weather theme and download a nice two seater with 10 gauges in the cockpit. Performance should improve. As for visuals, FS9 is 10 years old so the default scenery looks poor compared to Flight. Start looking here at Avsim for some scenery add-ons and texture updates. Am I dreamer for asking this: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/364527-microsoft-flight-request/ I hope Microsoft finishes Flight too, the eye candy is very nice.Hope this helps.RJ

I by no means am giving up FS9 but this calls in to question moving to FSX for me. You must have a newer system than mine as I know FSX will not run well on my current system. I knew it was crap that one needed such hardware to run FSX. Machines need 8+ gigs of Ram, i7 cores, and who know what else to approach the performance of FS9. FSX like FS2000 was a badly coded piece of software hands down. In true fashion one bad release followed a stellar release of Flight Simulator. After FS2000 came FS2k2. After FSX came Flight which could have been FS11 covering the whole world. Just the same we can see what FS11 was going to be if it had been finished.I 'can not' run FSX on my system, never said I could. Flight by contrast runs better than FS9 on my system all the while looking better than FSX.

Hello DillonFSX runs really well on my system, no FPS issues at all, if you look at my specs they are nothing special anymore, just a middle of the road system.That said Flight! will be great for simple VFR GA flying if the areas served up by MS are of interest to you.One of the greatest pleasures in the hobby for me has been the ability through freeware and payware to assemble my very own world to fly in.Now with Flight! I will only get to fly where MS want me too, in Aircraft that MS think I should like, either in a totally sterile environment with no sign of life or even worse in a 16 player multiplayer session with 15 kamikazi pre teens trying to ram me with their cockpitless mustang.Glad you are enjoying it though.

Are you trolling us? Maybe not.Don't know if you should compare FS9 to Flight. Maybe compare it to Blazing Angles 2 on Xbox but not FS9 nor FSX. If Flight is outperforming FS9, may I suggest you try some tweaks. Start by disabling all AI, removing ATC, and stop using real world weather with 3 cloud layers. Pick the fair weather theme and download a nice two seater with 10 gauges in the cockpit. Performance should improve. As for visuals, FS9 is 10 years old so the default scenery looks poor compared to Flight. Start looking here at Avsim for some scenery add-ons and texture updates.Am I dreamer for asking this: http://forum.avsim.n...flight-request/ I hope Microsoft finishes Flight too, the eye candy is very nice.Hope this helps.RJ

May I suggest you try Flight for yourself. No I'm not trolling as I was one of the biggest anti-supporters of Flight which almost got me banned from these forums. I hate the fact third party developers are excluded out of the process now which I hope will change. I'm asking nothing more than for FS9er's with older hardware to try this free simulator and be amazed at the performance they get. I will compare FSX (more than FS9) to this effort because I knew what we were being told about FSX's performance was crap. Maybe there's something to be said with the sacking of Aces to bring in some fresh talent who's using better coding methods to achieve better performance. Nothing should run better than FS9 at this point and if it does a great job was done especially if it looks better than FSX.So all this is to say, FS9er's check out the performance and flight models. Nothing more to it. Flight amazed me and I'm letting my fellow FS9ers know maybe theirs hope. This new core engine is what we've been asking for now the hard part is getting Microsoft to first complete the job and release an SDK.

Hello DillonFSX runs really well on my system, no FPS issues at all, if you look at my specs they are nothing special anymore, just a middle of the road system.That said Flight! will be great for simple VFR GA flying if the areas served up by MS are of interest to you.One of the greatest pleasures in the hobby for me has been the ability through freeware and payware to assemble my very own world to fly in.Now with Flight! I will only get to fly where MS want me too, in Aircraft that MS think I should like, either in a totally sterile environment with no sign of life or even worse in a 16 player multiplayer session with 15 kamikazi pre teens trying to ram me with their cockpitless mustang.Glad you are enjoying it though.

First off I'm glade FSX runs great for you, my question is look how long that took from release. Second my machine can't run FSX today which is a problem because my machine is newer than FSX. Flight comes out on day one running well on machines that FSX can't run on. You by contrast because FSX is no longer an issue can't see what just happened here. It's now proven what many FS9er's have been saying for years that machines weren't the issue with FSX it was bad coding. My purpose here is to see what those that can't run FSX get from Flight. Seeing as Flight is free what harm is there and what's to loose? :wink:Once last thing that I could get before is the verdict is still out as to where Flight will shack out. After seeing advanced FDE's in this new sim and the performance it has on older hardware it's unwise to assume ultimately this will totally be controlled by Microsoft. Things could go either way and with this communities support (FS9er's support) we very well see an SDK for third party developers. I can't say this enough that this is the core engine this community has been waiting on for years...

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by Dillon

Guys this blew me away last night so I have to get as many of you to try this as possible. Since the base version of Flight is free, download it and let us know does it not run better than FS9 or your older hardware all the while looking better than FSX. You can turn all the gamey stuff off and just fly in a world that is on the level of Orbix and get better framerates than you get in FS9. I've never seen a release of FS able to accomplish something like this. We would've been doing good if a new system of the day of release ran FS9/FS2k2 good but two or three year old systems running a new version of Flight Simulator 'well' is unprecedented.I just want to see if this is not just me... Critisizem aside about Flight being a game because once you turn that hud crap off and set those flight models to 'realistic' (after the first two forced mission you have to accomplish) your going to be amazed. This is the base platform we've been waiting on, Microsoft just needs to finish this thing and include third party developers.FS9er's who can't even think about installing FSX need to try this, trust me... :(

Hate to burst your bubble, but turn off AI and use a GA or default aircraft and you too will be getting as good frame rates in FSX and I'm sure even higher in FS9! To me the scenery doesn't really look that much better, just darker colored trees, and this is only with a E6850 C2D and a GTX 460.

May I suggest you try Flight for yourself.

I did on Feburay 28th. Visuals are nice. I Just completed a cold wintry twilight VOR approach into Ranklin Inlet (CYRT). What a flight!!! I felt like I was flying the old girl again...RJ

Hate to burst your bubble, but turn off AI and use a GA or default aircraft and you too will be getting as good frame rates in FSX and I'm sure even higher in FS9! To me the scenery doesn't really look that much better, just darker colored trees, and this is only with a E6850 C2D and a GTX 460.

Between you and me and those two shots, Flight actually looks better (sorry). :( I'd loose that hud if I were you... On my machine I can turn off everything extra in FSX and pump up the scenery to look similar to Flight and FSX will not run well. I wish my bubble could be burst here but I've been looking at FSX for years and no matter what you do it's a dog in the performance arena...

I did on Feburay 28th. Visuals are nice.I Just completed a cold wintry twilight VOR approach into Ranklin Inlet (CYRT). What a flight!!! I felt like I was flying the old girl again...RJ

All I asked is you try it out. :( I'm not deleting FS9 off my system either. I just did a great flight from KMCO to KLGA. Just the same Flight's performance blew me away on my system. I will now exit out of this thread and let FS9er's share their views on performance alone between FS9 and Flight. I'm not concerned about how much people hate what Microsoft did with Flight as I agree and it seems we're descending on that kind of conversation. This is all about what people get in Flight on older hardware who couldn't by contrast run FSX and expect the same experience.

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by Dillon

I did on Feburay 28th. Visuals are nice.I Just completed a cold wintry twilight VOR approach into Ranklin Inlet (CYRT). What a flight!!! I felt like I was flying the old girl again...RJ

Watcha flying??? your explanation and shot sets a "mood"

Hopefully everyone will stay respectful and this topic won't go south!Well Dillon at least you have given me food for thought, I was not even aware the flight forum was open again. I am however pretty confident that I could get fsx running well on your system if I had a look. Just like with FS9 it took a while for people to find the correct tweaks cfg setups etc before the sim ran smooth. It is a myth that you need a monster machine to run FSX well, I have a test machine core2duo 3.2 ghz 4g ram 560TI 1gig win764 bit and FSX is smooth, fs9 is totally blown away no matter what I throw it. My I7 4ghz system runs FSX just as well as FS9.Back to flight, thanks for brining up your findings, if it does work very well on low end systems then it should make a few people here that can't afford to upgrade and want FSX visuals very happy. Regards

Hello DillonIn the last interview with Joshua he said that involvement for 3PD was possibly three years away, if we do not support FSX in the meantimethere will not be many left to make use of an SDK.Three years of being drip fed MS default scenery and basic aircraft does not hold much attraction really no matter how smooth it runs.