New and from scratch? Man you must be in real denial! I'm not saying Flight is bad, it's actually pretty good, but it is what it is, FSX stripped of most of it's features, a new GUI, different (Not necessarily better) ground textures, and an increased Lod Radius! Nothing more nothing less. Let's stop trying to make Flight out to be something it's not!

 

I'm sure you guys would know a lot better then some guy who worked on the Flight team for a year. I would debate you, but I'm restricted by NDA. The vast majority if Flight is new or re written code and gfx.

I have never personally seen FS9 or FSX run on any computer, no matter how fast, as smoothly as Flight does on my middle of the road machine.

I have a pretty decent computer, I7 950 4Ghz OC, Nvidia GTX480 12GB 1600MHz DDR3. I see stutters in MS Flight, even more when i pan my head around looking out the side window.

Im not saying Its not flyable, but I run FSX just as good. And with Orbx im more than happy with the details in the scenery.

Im quite disapointed of Flight. The orbx City scenery i.e Portland(Freeware) i think look more detailed than the cities in hawaii, better roads, better building textures, personally I think MS FLight's buildings look like Old Soviet communist arcitecture, grey and boring, and the roads arent ligned up right with the buildings(roads going under buildings). I think Hawai Is not that big and they should have put more detail to their city scenery.

 

I like to say that there are some things about flight that's better, like lightning, shadows fog etc.. but i dont miss those things when i fly FSX, all the other things I can do adds up. i.e AI, ATC real weather etc.

But this is all my opinion. I hope microsoft actually succeds with this Flight game. The more flying Sim/Games there are out there, better for all of us, then we all can choose what we like.

Stuttering is one thing. Having really low frame rate no matter what at all times is another. Also 3rd party's will always be able to do better then default scenery since they are not constrained by tight performance minimums. Some of the 3rd party aircraft I have made go up to 300,000 polygons, while default aircraft in FSX range around 20,000.

When microsoft opens up and give a roadmap for what their plans are with flight, and maybe open up for 3 party devs. Then I would give my money away and support Flight. Right now i dont know the direction this Sim/Game is taking. So i give my money to 3partys because i know what i have and what direction they are moving in.

New and from scratch? Man you must be in real denial! I'm not saying Flight is bad, it's actually pretty good, but it is what it is, FSX stripped of most of it's features, a new GUI, different (Not necessarily better) ground textures, and an increased Lod Radius! Nothing more nothing less. Let's stop trying to make Flight out to be something it's not!

1. Open mouth.
   
2. Insert foot.
   

:Loser:

When microsoft opens up and give a roadmap for what their plans are with flight, and maybe open up for 3 party devs. Then I would give my money away and support Flight. Right now i dont know the direction this Sim/Game is taking. So i give my money to 3partys because i know what i have and what direction they are moving in.

 

I agree. They need to be more open about whats going on I think, and I think they would have more support if people knew the roadmap. The thing is, MS is not known for its open development. I dont see this happening any time soon.