The way I read their announcement is that they are releasing FSX to Steam in its original form (possibly fixing multiplayer) and then using the FLIGHT engine to develope a new game. Maybe I read it wrong?

I agree with the first part of this comment, but yet to see ANY info/release that they will be using the FLIGHT engine for new game development.

 

So, Those of us that do have FSX, why on earth would we be interested in this? FLIGHT? Remember all the comments when it was released about how 'arcade' looking it was?

 

I think it is a very good marketing ploy by Microsoft to give an old discontinued, unsupported game to Dovetail to re-distribute. It saves MS all the costs of storage, distribution, & manufacture, as, I am sure, the Dovetail version will be downloadable only.

 

In any case, think of the payware & freeware vendors & developers.. They are heavily involved in FS9 (still, believe it or not!) FSX & P3D. Now if any new sim somes out.. somehow, I could be mistaken, I cannot see much going to happen.

P.S.  All this talk abot Trains??

 

Aha.. from Wikipedia...

On 9 July 2014, Dovetail Games announced that it has signed a licensing agreement with Microsoft to release Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Gold Edition on Steam in late 2014, titled Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition. It also announced that it will be developing and producing all-new flight simulation software based on Microsoft's flight technology, expecting to bring a release to market in 2015.^[6] Following the announcement, the company announced on 25 July 2014 that it will be working in partnership with Flight One Software (Flight1), a developer and publisher of flight simulation content, to deliver a range of Flight1 add-ons for the forthcoming Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition

 

So, yippee, a selected range Flight1 add-ons will be distributed via Steam for FSX: Steam edition. & the other developers?? No-one rushing off to join them?

It talks about Microsoft's flight technology!! We taking it for granted that it's about Microsoft FLIGHT? 

Actually, it is saying absolutely nothing! It could even be FS9 techlonlogy.

 

Perhaps the restriction on modifying FSX is only limited to the upcoming Steam product that bears the FSX name. Basically Microsoft wanted to make sure that it is still compatible with the currently available FSX product. The sim they are releasing next year could then still use the FSX code, but won't be called FSX.

 

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable deduction. In fact, it's surely the only viable conclusion if Dovetail expects to release anything in 2015.....unless they are using the MS Flight engine. The latter is probably not as bad an idea as it sounds to some people, because the base terrain graphics of Hawaii in MS Flight always looked better to me (based on screenshots) than those in FSX or FS2004, and maybe even P3D.

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable deduction. In fact, it's surely the only viable conclusion if Dovetail expects to release anything in 2015.....unless they are using the MS Flight engine. The latter is probably not as bad an idea as it sounds to some people, because the base terrain graphics of Hawaii in MS Flight always looked better to me (based on screenshots) than those in FSX or FS2004, and maybe even P3D.

Who wants to spend their entire simming career in Hawaii? I expect DT will engineer FSX so that only DLC available on steam can be downloaded. Everything else including what's available on avsim will probably be blocked.

I was assuming that terrain for the rest of the world had been hauled across from FSX to MS Flight, but maybe that was a rather optimistic thought!

I was assuming that terrain for the rest of the world had been hauled across from FSX to MS Flight, but maybe that was a rather optimistic thought!

 

Essentially it seems to be aiming for that option. You point it to your FSX folder and it translates everything over.

So we got the scenery from FSX into Flight, maybe planes as well?

& the benefits of going that route as compared to sticking with FSX or P3D?

For me, gone are the days of installing every plane I found. 

These days, I mainly fly in the UK with photoscenery and some UK2000 airfields on Vatsim.

 

I use:

Ez-Dok

Aivlasoft EFB

REX Essentials plus Overdrive 

REX 4 Direct for textures.

Plan-G

 

I have a serial based throttle unit and a MS forcefeedback joystick.

 

I fly:

iFly 737

PMDG 777

Aerosoft A320

Majestic Dash 8

Default Cessna 172.

 

The question is, how much would I pay again for all the above to avoid FSX crashing.

 

I've been using FSX for a while, so I've got around most issues. 

 

I haven't (yet) touched P3D, because of the various license restrictions and the fact of reinstalling things again.. 

 

I haven't (yet) gone to XP10 as I don't want to buy the above for (imo) not much gain. 

 

'IF' FSX went 64 bit, I would hope the above developers would release their 64bit titles as upgrades and I would only pay (again) for noticeable results. 

 

All I can see happening is FSX and various planes being sold on steam.

 

Filton airfield is now no more. Heathrow or Gatwick may get a new runway. Are they going to update the world's airfields? 

 

What I would pay for is for someone like Nvidia to release something magic that would allow their GPU to take the all stress of the CPU giving a minimum of 30 FPS in FSX with the PMDG 777 in the most dense of areas. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So we got the scenery from FSX into Flight, maybe planes as well?

& the benefits of going that route as compared to sticking with FSX or P3D?

 

Much more efficient memory and cpu usage. Much higher texture resolutions (FSX is 1 meter per pixel, FLIGHT is 1 inch per pixel) a much more advanced cloud/fog system (Independant fog, wind and haze layers) higher frame rates, a very advanced mission/training capability, an advanced sound system, better handling of shadows, (cascading, and trees and objects both cast and receive shadows as well as the trees having triple the resolution and the ability to move with wind effects) the cliff texture system, enhanced autogen........

 

Flight actually brought quite a few things to the table, but in all the yelling and staking out of positions, much of it was completely ignored.

Andrewr... license restrictions of P3D? huh? It should be obvious to all that we fly 'not for entertainment' but to enjoy ourselves & to learn to do things properly. For entertainment, we PLAY games... Anyhow, its worth the shlep of installing stuff.

 

HiFlyer, thanks for the info. Very interesting. I have tried the basic Flight a few times & battled with the activating. Methinks I should find the energy again...

 

X-Plane.. For me, too much energy to learn where all the buttons etc are. I'm so used to what I have.

 

DX11.. Oh Yeh!! I'm still on P3Dv1.4 as my laptop is only DX10, but have installed V2.3 on a decent PC..

 

But yes, FSX & add-ons on Steam. Sigh!

 

A 64bit FSX? We all know, by now, that FSX is what it is.. Maybe a 64bit P3D, but I'm not holding my breath at all, as the add-ons will also have to be converted.

 

 

HiFlyer, thanks for the info. Very interesting. I have tried the basic Flight a few times & battled with the activating. Methinks I should find the energy again...

 

Whatever the perceived faults of the management and handling of the product, the developers/programmers produced an excellent engine that they were never allowed to finish. It would be a shame if the result of all that effort and skill was never put to use, somehow, somewhere.

 

 

Maybe a 64bit P3D,

 

It's a massive code change, but it will almost certainly have to happen, i would imagine business customers will demand it.  Even within the FSX world the PMDG 777 is virtually unusable in anything other than stock scenery and no traffic.  

 

 

the developers/programmers produced an excellent engine that they were never allowed to finish.

 

Yes, Flight had a number of improvements but at least for me, one glaring omission, it was still only 32-bit.  This was forgivable when FSX was released, although not very forward thinking, but the omission is completely baffling at the time of Flight's release.

Yes, Flight had a number of improvements but at least for me, one glaring omission, it was still only 32-bit.  This was forgivable when FSX was released, although not very forward thinking, but the omission is completely baffling at the time of Flight's release.

 

64bit is not necessarily the end all and be all. The story seems to be that the memory handling and GPU offloading were efficient enough that 64bit was much less of a concern.

 

I know that on my paltry Nvidia 770 I consistently get between 99 and 127 FPS with high settings, and that's with the cascading shadows, higher resolution, more trees, denser autogen, etc.

 

It also seems the case that other features active in FSX were actually in flight as well, but disabled, probably to be worked on and activated later.

 

DTG could do much worse then use FLIGHT as the basis for something new.

 

 

64bit is not necessarily the end all and be all. The story seems to be that the memory handling and GPU offloading were efficient enough that 64bit was much less of a concern.

Engine efficiency has it's limitations; Flight was never seriously tested with complex (hence memory hungry) add-ons, stock FSX runs with no memory issues, the 4gb limit only starts to become an issue once you start adding scenery and aircraft.

Engine efficiency has it's limitations; Flight was never seriously tested with complex (hence memory hungry) add-ons, stock FSX runs with no memory issues, the 4gb limit only starts to become an issue once you start adding scenery and aircraft.

That was always my concern about Flight. I loved the merry bells off it but could easily imagine it repeating the same old FSX memory limitations if more complex scenery and planes were thrown at it.

That was always my concern about Flight. I loved the merry bells off it but could easily imagine it repeating the same old FSX memory limitations if more complex scenery and planes were thrown at it.

 

I guess we shall soon see, at least on the scenery part of it. Should be interesting!

 

And don't get me wrong, I would love 64 bit; I just think that you can still do great things with 32 bit, too.