Whatever features are added to MS FLIGHT, they will most probably do it in such a way that it can be tuned down/supressed for low-end machines.

 

Presently with my i5 2500 and 8GB RAM 1GB Nvidia Card, I can run MS FLIGHT fully maximized, but I don't partly because my motherboard is set for "high economy mode"... I've noticed some stutters a couple of time, near really congested areas, but nothing comparable to even the less problematic stutters I was used to back in FSX days...

You are most likely correct, on both counts.

 

Unfortunately.

 

Which leaves me in a situation I can live with, with little traffic and no ATC.

 

Which is actually fairly typical in Alaska, from what I understand, other than for large planes on scheduled routes.

 

I feel ATC and AI air traffic can wait. But many will disagree.

 

My biggest single issue is with graphics. For those who's only "games" are flight sims, there might not be a big issue, but for those who previously or still play modern AAA titles, Flight and FSX look like twins. Sometimes they practically make you want to claw your own eyes out at the prehistoric horror.

 

Since modern gamers are supposedly a major part of the demographic flight claims to be aiming at, they need to do better.

 

Actually, strike that. Everyone wants better than fsx level graphics. Otherwise Orbx and many other companys would not exist, nor be doing so well. When I first heard about flight, I assumed that with new technology and a new graphics engine, Orbx medium level would be Flight base level......

 

Who knew?

Orbx medium level would be Flight base level......

 

The problem with comparing Flight with Orbx (FSX) is that there are too many differences. And it all depends on what you focus. Yes, Orbx airport addons (each costing more then the entire Adventure pack btw) look better then Flight airports (sharper textures, lot of detail). But Flight airports perfrom great. And Flight has shadows all over the place and light: FSX (and hence Orbx) has none of that all. That's not Orbx's fault, of course, but simply a limitation of FSX. But hey, this is getting old (too). It's apples and oranges. What Flight DOES offer is, by pure coincidence, exactly what I like to have in a flying game. Some people call Flight 'dead' because there are no cars driving around and there is no AI. I call FSX 'dead' because there is no light in it. See? We both call the other game dead but we both are focusing on something completey different.

I would love better graphical rendering, but I find Flight's adequate for immersion. Graphics as pertaining to scenery-design is a different matter...

 

To me, the real advantage of 3PD scenery is that the makers are often intimately familiar with the area. So, they fix all the obvious errors from autogen placement, like the big bush right beside Makapu'u lighthouse in Flight that completely obstructs it in views from the north. In reality, you can see that white lighthouse all the way up at Kaneohe. In Flight, not at all. I didn't think it was even there until I flew down to it and found the big bush right next to it. Likewise for the trees out on Flat Island in Kailua Bay. They are glaringly out of place.

 

They put in all the landmark objects that people who do know the area expect to see, like the missing Aloha Stadium, Trippler Army Hospital, and Aloha Tower.

 

They align the urban tiles so that streets aren't obviously cut off or fragmented, and large highly-visible features like running tracks aren't truncated.

 

That kind of attention-to-detail is a labor of love that MS simply doesn't have the time to do, if they want to meet a reasonable delivery schedule on a tight budget. But others will do it simply because they want "their" area to be represented correctly.

The problem with comparing Flight with Orbx (FSX) is that there are too many differences. And it all depends on what you focus. Yes, Orbx airport addons (each costing more then the entire Adventure pack btw) look better then Flight airports (sharper textures, lot of detail). But Flight airports perfrom great. And Flight has shadows all over the place and light: FSX (and hence Orbx) has none of that all. That's not Orbx's fault, of course, but simply a limitation of FSX. But hey, this is getting old (too). It's apples and oranges. What Flight DOES offer is, by pure coincidence, exactly what I like to have in a flying game. Some people call Flight 'dead' because there are no cars driving around and there is no AI. I call FSX 'dead' because there is no light in it. See? We both call the other game dead but we both are focusing on something completey different.

 

On the other hand, I think we all have a strong su######ion about what would most likely happen if Orbx was let loose with the Flight graphics engine. I have never subscribed to the belief that flights increases in frame rate were gained primarily at the cost of dropping fsx features, or that reintroduction of those features would make flight unplayable.

 

That kind of attention-to-detail is a labor of love that MS simply doesn't have the time to do, if they want to meet a reasonable delivery schedule on a tight budget. But others will do it simply because they want "their" area to be represented correctly.

 

Attention to detail as far as putting in every building and bush, no, I don't expect that from Microsoft, but I do expect a standard of care higher than FSX in tile placement and blending. I posted what I hope were some nice pictures recently, but the backstory is how long I had to search for places where tiles were not placed willy nilly in nearly random juxtapositions, and how carefully I had to avoid cities to get anything at all.

 

Edit: The word sus -pic-ious and its alternates is blocked? o.O

The word sus -pic-ious and its alternates is blocked? o.O

 

Ti - tle got blocked the other day. Somebody needs to lighten up on the filter, because it's a little out of control.

Edit: The word sus -pic-ious and its alternates is blocked? o.O

 

Yeah, certain "hot button" words are blocked, but it's not been implemented very well. Strings like Tit-le, sp-ic, etc can show up in normal conversation. Just have to preview your post for stuff like that. Annoying.

Wow. I normally would immediately spend some quality time trying to construct a paragraph or so of completely blocked non-swear words. But then, my sense of humor was always strange. :P

I had title fixed last weekend (as you can see): I've asked for this one to be fixed too...

 

EDIT

Suspicion. Suspicious. There you go.

 

Back on topic: today I noticed two Flight-newbies (not from this forum) moved to FSX because they wanted to fly a Boeing and they wanted to fly it into their home airport. They did say Flight runs and looks better, but well... it doesn't allow you to land a Boeing into their home airport... Of course this is no problem at all: it's nice to have options. I went from FSX to Flight and they went from Flight to FSX (for the moment being ). The important thing is: we all have fun doing what we're doing...! They and me simpy use what we like, period. Life can be so simple (and stress free) if you simply enjoy what you've got.

Wow. I normally would immediately spend some quality time trying to construct a paragraph or so of completely blocked non-swear words. But then, my sense of humor was always strange. :P

 

I contemplated it too, then discarded it as too much work. :Peace:

 

I have never subscribed to the belief that flights gains in frame rate were gained primarily at the cost of dropping fsx features, or that reintroduction of those features would make flight unplayable.

 

In any case, I also don't believe that Flight's performance gains resulted from simply discarding FSX features. Rather, I imagine that a lot of FSX features simply have not been implemented in the new, better-performing code.

Life can be so simple (and stress free) if you simply enjoy what you've got.

 

Of course I pointed in another thread in another forum that simply enjoying what you have might not be the human way.......

 

(maybe it should be)

 

But if we followed that credo to the letter, Flight would never get Track IR

I would love better graphical rendering, but I find Flight's adequate for immersion. Graphics as pertaining to scenery-design is a different matter...

 

 

This is what makes Flight. a realistic sim to fly in my opinion. CAE in Montreal Canada, where I visited the factory, makes simulators that cost about 20 million dollars. The instrumentation and feel of the controls and handling of the flying model exactly mimics the real plane that the simulator is designed for. The graphics that you see out the window are pretty sparse, no AI traffic, no moving cars, no boats sailing, no people walking around, no blondes waving at you from the terminal, etc..etc.. The time spent flying the sim, is looked at by the airlines, as actual time in the cockpit. In fact, you train totally in the sim, take one check ride in a real plane, and the next flight you you pilot, is full of passengers.. When the pilot takes a check ride, it is in the sim, and when presented with an emergency they sweat just like if they were in the real aircraft going though the same emergency. Eye candy, is not needed for immersion

This is what makes Flight. a realistic sim to fly in my opinion. CAE in Montreal Canada, where I visited the factory, makes simulators that cost about 20 million dollars. The instrumentation and feel of the controls and handling of the flying model exactly mimics the real plane that the simulator is designed for. The graphics that you see out the window are pretty sparse, no AI traffic, no moving cars, no boats sailing, no people walking around, no blondes waving at you from the terminal, etc..etc.. The time spent flying the sim, is looked at by the airlines, as actual time in the cockpit. In fact, you train totally in the sim, take one check ride in a real plane, and the next flight you you pilot, is full of passengers.. When the pilot takes a check ride, it is in the sim, and when presented with an emergency they sweat just like if they were in the real aircraft going though the same emergency. Eye candy, is not needed for immersion

 

I would agree with you absolutely/totally and in every detail.

 

We would part company when you try to sell that simulation with no eye candy to the general public............

 

I know of at least one company that already went that route for an extended period, but flight claims ambitions for a wider audience.

Eye candy, is not needed for immersion

 

It's hard NOT to be immersed when you are sitting in a realistic and detailed cockpit, 100% true to its real life counterpart and probably also moving as if it's the real deal... It's easy to be immersed that way! I would be totally immersed in that simulator even if there were no outside graphcs at all!

 

That's something different then sitting behind a 24" PC-screen with a joystick (on the attic beside the drying laundry...). Let one of those sweating pilots sit behind a PC with a joystick and show him the crappy graphics from that 20 million dollar sim: let me know if he still is immersed.

 

I do need graphics to be immersed. To ME Flight is the best flying game because of the great mood and that mood is completely due to the graphics. I have never flown a real plane myself: the fact that Flight also pretty much flies realistic is a nice bonus. But if the graphics were the same as on that 20 million dollar sim, I'd be playing another game right now! No matter how good the handling was.

And yet, oddly, the impatience seems to come mostly from the 'hard core' simmers... not the short attention span gamers...

 

I am not trying to bash the game, but for the most part the short attention span gamers moved on already or never stopped to look.