Yeah look at Aerofly FS, its already years ahead Flight. And better computers in few years will allow even much more of that... Switching Flight from 2006 to what is possible today is pretty much impossible to do now afterwards though.

Yeah look at Aerofly FS, its already years ahead Flight. And better computers in few years will allow even much more of that... Switching Flight from 2006 to what is possible today is pretty much impossible to do now afterwards though.

 

Not at all impossible.

 

Look at the original Everquest. It has had, what, two complete replacements of the entire graphical engine during it's long run?

 

Anything is possible in a product continually funded via ongoing payments, whether it be subscription-based or DLC-based.

 

Unlikely, sure. But not impossible.

its already years ahead Flight

 

Years...? Really? I've heard (haven't tried Aerofly myself) hardly anything in the cockpit is clickable? Can use navigate using VOR? Do ILS landings? I've seen movies and screenshots and the groundtextures look pretty low res, certainly not better then anything in Flight. So in what aspect exactly is Aerofly 'years ahead'? The only thing it has going for it are the photoreal textures. But personally I am not a fan of flat buildings embedded with shadows and all. I am curious what exactly Aerofly does better then Flight and how that does translate to 'years'!

Hi Jeroen

 

I agree with you about Photo-real textures in general. Because of file sizes, you usually give away the option for seasons and night lighting, housing placement is almost never more than spotty, and shadows don't match.

 

In regards to Aerofly itself, I have also heard about limited functionality of the instrumentation, but I feel its an addressable issue; either by Aerofly themselves or third parties. They also have a lot going for them in regards to energy, enthusiasm and excitement, not just among their fans, but from the company itself. (Contrariwise, the amount of energy being radiated from Microsoft so far about its own product is negligible. I am beginning to wonder if they think customers have cooties, and they don't want to risk too much contact) :P

 

From all I have seen, Aerofly has crafted a lean, fast and modern graphics engine that appears more than capable of matching Flights as far as graphical polish and pure polygon pushing power. This from a tiny little company as opposed to the full technical prowess of Microsoft. David and Goliath stuff.

 

They still have a ways to go in the technical/instrumentation department, but in that regard, I guess its a question of if you believe they really want to get there, which I mostly do. (whether they have the resources, or ever will is another question) On the other hand I am still waiting for clear evidence that Microsoft intend to "get there" or even where they think "there" is, resources or not.

 

An awful lot of people are probably waiting on Alaska to provide that final clue.

 

In the meantime, a quick look at the scenery that is on offer from Aerofly (or just about anybody) shows frankly superior attention to detail. better modeling craftsmanship, better use of color, much more life and evidence of human habitation, more variety of habitation (in limited areas, just like flight) better clouds, passable water.... All nothing that Flight should technically be incapable of. (since even FSX can do as well or better, though more slowly)

 

They just don't seem to be trying other than the fully modern technical aspects of the planes and flight models themselves, which almost seem to belong in a different game made by a different team compared to the minimalist environment they have been surrounded buy.

 

Hopefully Alaska will alleviate that disparity a bit, but for now, visually at least, I think Aerofly is much more attractive in almost every regard, and much more indicative of what many people expected from a modern game/sim. (Which is probably another reason why there are so many "Gosh, isn't this gorgeous" vids of Aerofly on Youtube, whereas Flight vids are mostly about doing funny/silly things)

 

I am not saying they are "better" than flight overall: both sims have strengths and weaknesses and its true that Aerofly has some low res textures as well: they just use them so much better. I don't know if they already have one, but Flight needs an art director in the worst way; one with a color pallet that extends beyond "drab" and who is allowed to use an artistic eye and more care in scenery construction.

 

[media=]

[/media]

Years...? Really? I've heard (haven't tried Aerofly myself) hardly anything in the cockpit is clickable? Can use navigate using VOR? Do ILS landings? I've seen movies and screenshots and the groundtextures look pretty low res, certainly not better then anything in Flight. So in what aspect exactly is Aerofly 'years ahead'? The only thing it has going for it are the photoreal textures. But personally I am not a fan of flat buildings embedded with shadows and all. I am curious what exactly Aerofly does better then Flight and how that does translate to 'years'!

Graphically I meant, of course they are still lacking in other areas but filling those areas too is not any kind of problem and in Flight most of that stuff is likely work of ACES studios for FS and then converted to Flight.

And adding buildings over photoscenery is not impossible either, actually I think FranceVFR is developing some way which would allow automatic placement of buildings into right spots within photoscenery.

 

Anyway photoreal textures wouldn't be necessary for major graphical change, ORBX already doing very well with their texturing that is nowhere near as repetitive as ones you see in default FS and Flight. I am just saying that way of texturing Flight still uses is nowhere near what we could see if they had developed something new in that sector instead of using old FS style.

I enjoy both Flight and Aerofly and in some respects Aerofly feels impressive. It supports TrackIR which is handy, and the photorealistic scenery is mapped onto sharp looking mountains which are just breathtaking. The planes are modelled nicely - and have cockpits. Though they do not have VORs DME etc, some do have a GPS style moving map... There are limited airfields that are nicely modelled (seeing those fluttering flags was a Wow! moment) - and many are basic. Zurich international is just a big flat space...

 

So, no multi-player (yet), no AI planes, no ATC, no changing time of day (or night) - in short, not very lively, all a bit Swiss in fact ;)

 

 

You don't need photoscenery in order to have correct roads and landclass. Here is the same area in FSX, with no photoscenery, just UTX and GEX.

 

 

France VFR are they guys who apparently found a way to massively automate auto-gen placement over photo-scenery. This is a pretty impressive video of the results, and when I first saw it a few months ago, the first thing I thought was that if I was Microsoft I would buy the technology.

 

Second thought was that combined with Aerofly, this could be a killer.

 

Third thought was how crazy Aerosofts photoreal Germany would have been with this tech.

 

[media=]

[/media]