Meh, it might be, but we won't know until more scenery is available to us.

 

How is more scenery going to tell us if they used the FSX engine? You can clearly see some of the same visual issues that FSX had still appearing in Flight. That makes it hard for me to believe they started from scratch with code. This is coming from someone who insisted that they were starting from scratch back when it was still in development.

You do know that just because it shows FSX visuals to the naked eye doesn't necessarily mean that they used FSX textures. But according to what you said and other Flights I've taken, yes I will have to agree that they used some of FSX's textures for Flight.

You do know that just because it shows FSX visuals to the naked eye doesn't necessarily mean that they used FSX textures. But according to what you said and other Flights I've taken, yes I will have to agree that they used some of FSX's textures for Flight.

 

Yes, but they used more than just textures form FSX.

Hi,

 

"Is Flight made using any of FSX files?"

A cursory check shows no common files. Perhaps the file contents may be the same but in the absence of some supportive evidence any expressed belief remains pure conjecture.

 

Jim F.

1. They are still using .bgl files for the scenery data.

2. They are using .dds bitmaps for textures.

3. The contents of the aircraft.cfg/.air files are now contained in an .spb file... which is a 'compiled' XML file in FSX and could easily contain the exact same data that an aircraft.cfg and an .air file contains.

 

So... exactly how much original code do you really think is in this?? All physical files are now protected and encapsulated so you can't change a thing without it going through Microsoft... but near as I can tell, that's the primary change: file format. All of the supporting .dll files are 'gone'... but then the .exe went from a 2mb file size to over 15mb... easily supporting the concept of making the .dll files now part of the base .exe and thus more 'protected'.

A cursory check shows no common files.

 

The controls file is still called standard.xml. Weird name for a file... not exactly descriptive.

 

Hook

Take a look at the directory structure in the CoreContent.pak file.

 

Hard to Tell, but there's some new and some old. Most of it is new though. Textures are mostly from FSX. Most if the stuff we see are upgraded FSX files and stuff. Open your .pak folder and check it out. It's interesting.

Hi,

 

I wouldn't recommend replacing similarly named Flight files or folders with any from FSX. If anyone decides to do this let us know how that works out. I'll grant you that ones and zeroes are common but beyond that "I'm from Missouri."

 

Jim F.

:Talk to the Hand: Seriously, Flight is from FSX......who knew..... :Waiting:

1. They are still using .bgl files for the scenery data.

2. They are using .dds bitmaps for textures.

3. The contents of the aircraft.cfg/.air files are now contained in an .spb file... which is a 'compiled' XML file in FSX and could easily contain the exact same data that an aircraft.cfg and an .air file contains.

 

So... exactly how much original code do you really think is in this?? All physical files are now protected and encapsulated so you can't change a thing without it going through Microsoft... but near as I can tell, that's the primary change: file format. All of the supporting .dll files are 'gone'... but then the .exe went from a 2mb file size to over 15mb... easily supporting the concept of making the .dll files now part of the base .exe and thus more 'protected'.

1. They are still using .bgl files for the scenery data.

2. They are using .dds bitmaps for textures.

3. The contents of the aircraft.cfg/.air files are now contained in an .spb file... which is a 'compiled' XML file in FSX and could easily contain the exact same data that an aircraft.cfg and an .air file contains.

 

So... exactly how much original code do you really think is in this?? All physical files are now protected and encapsulated so you can't change a thing without it going through Microsoft... but near as I can tell, that's the primary change: file format. All of the supporting .dll files are 'gone'... but then the .exe went from a 2mb file size to over 15mb... easily supporting the concept of making the .dll files now part of the base .exe and thus more 'protected'.

 

I've been waiting for this to be pointed out...in fact...I'd call it fsx light..

Don't confuse the "art assets" with the actual "program code." They are two completely separate topics...

1. Most of the "art assets" are retained from FSX.
   
2. Most of the "program code" is entirely new.
   

 

I am with Bill on this. The format of things may look the same - the file extensions also. That does not mean they are the same. As a software developer I would have to say this is a non question since it is very rare for no code to get re-used. There is something called re-factoring. Means to take old code and make it cleaner, faster, easier to maintain etc etc. I would say that some of Flight may well be refactored from FS1, other code may come from GameX. Other code will be entirely new. Did they re-write the whole physics engine - only if they had a very senior moment!. However I feel safe to say there there is a lof of new code.

 

Finally if you want to say that Flight is FSX Lite then you might also want to say it is Windows 7 lite, XYZ Game lite etc etc..... and Finally Finally it does not matter a damn what the origins of the code are. What does matter is what you see in the User Interface. There is something in programming called the Duck Test - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. So by that test Flight looks like FSX and sounds like FSX then perhaps it is 9-)

Certainly not FS X Light. More like FS 11 Light

 

Clearly, as Jon and Bill say, a whole lot of the code had to be rewritten in order to render on the vid card instead of the CPU, and clearly a lot of the techniques are the same, because... they work and it has taken many years to develop them and get them where they are. :Peace:

 

As for the art, and particularly the ground textures, I would appreciate if somebody could point out the precise Flight ground textures and the corresponding FS textures. I have spent many years working on this and have not noticed precise matches, although there are similarities. Of course, I am often wrong, but it would be kindness itself if somebody who knows more than me could enlighten me with concrete examples.

 

As for the rest, well, it is a flight simulator, a pretty good one that seems quite improved over previous versions of FS with respect to flight models, visual models, weather, terrain and scenery... The main issue, and what is probably bothering so many people, is that FS 11 (sorry, I meant Flight ) has been simplified to the extreme. Less complexity and options are available because it is meant to attract more people to the game, not just the airline simmers and real pilots. Too bad for them and for those who wanted another FS X, but really, isn't it time yet to get over it and go have fun with one's favorite game?

 

Best regards.

Luis

It certainly IS Luis!

 

Also, the fact that the FM files have a similar structure is perfectly acceptable. MSFS FM is very complete/complex, and the core that uses the data on those files has certainly gone through a considerable redesign process because otherwise we would not be able to feel such a different response from the flight and overall physics / weather models, etc...

 

Yesterday I pointed out on another thread how good ground handling now is, even under strong crosswind! IMHO no other recent civilian flightsim is doing it so well...

 

Also after having tried my first cockpitless aircraft all I can say is that even if cockpitless it's dynamics feel very acceptable/convincing/good!

 

 

 

Too bad for them and for those who wanted another FS X, but really, isn't it time yet to get over it and go have fun with one's favorite game?

1. They are still using .bgl files for the scenery data.

2. They are using .dds bitmaps for textures.

3. The contents of the aircraft.cfg/.air files are now contained in an .spb file... which is a 'compiled' XML file in FSX and could easily contain the exact same data that an aircraft.cfg and an .air file contains.

 

Once again, these are all "assets" and do not represent the actual core program that makes all these assets sing and dance.