Flight dynamics are great. Physics are great except landing I feel is a little too slow but I can live with it. FPS is slow but I know that DX10 patch will fix that. It's frusterating but we know that it will be fixed sooner or later. What I have a problem with however is graphics. Now don't get me wrong here. Flying with altitude (say 1500+) I have no problem with the graphics. Satellite imagery is meant to be seen from a top-down view and at 1500 feet most of the scenery you are seeing is from top-down view. However in low-level flight (taking off/landing) when you get below say 1000 feet approximately you start to see the scenery become flat and deformed. Here is a link to show you what I mean so I don't have to explain it in detail. Picture says a 1000 words.http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/microsoftfl...creenindex.htmlLook at the Vegas shot. In fact, look at all 4 pics in the top row. Look at how the ground is a flat blurry zoomed in mess with autogen ugly poking its way up through this mess. Now, I don't know too much about graphics. I can't say exactly what causes this. I think it's because it's 2d but I can't gaurantee. I know that autogen is 3d and it's 1996 3d material. Nothing special and not pleasing to the eye. It could be the fact that it's planted on something that's 2d but who knows. All I know is that it's not appealing. I can live with everything FSX and FS has to offer but I like to feel like the entire flight is realistic and taking off/landing are the most exciting parts of the flight imho. Well in most of the flight at altitude they have things fine. There is no reason to make the whole world 3d and I am not expecting it to be. However, Flightzone 02: Portland by flightscenery (http://www.flightscenery.com) does an excellent job of making these 3d airports and surrounding radius that really is beautiful. If a small company (i'm not sure how small it really is but I will assume it's much smaller then MS) can do this with such great detail on last year's game (fs9) then why can't MS produce some themselves?? Why can't we see some "sceneries" by Microsoft that come with FSX or possibly just the deluxe version?? This is where I think the future should be going (but should already have started) for FS. http://chicago054.server4free.de/jeff/movi...undPortland.wmv (here is the video courtesy of jgreth123) This is what FS9 looks like with FZ02: Portland. I really wish MS could do something similar to this with more airports. Let me also add that the blurry zoomed in images that I talk about and that I linked to help explain should be the result of flying low over most of the land in the world (maybe 85%). You shouldn't see this when making your approach to KSAN or KSEA or KATL or every single airport in the entire game. I am not complaining at all. I am constructively criticizing. I think this game is great and has potential to be even that much better with just the small price of adding 3d rendered airports/surrounding radius. That's all it needs. I know it's a lot of work and it's an FPS killer but we are looking into the future here and MS has a long time to make these games so they have the time. If they can nail down multi-core processing then by FS11 they should have this with more then just a couple airports. For now we should be able to have this for some airports.

>beautiful. If a small company (i'm not sure how small it>really is but I will assume it's much smaller then MS) can do>this with such great detail on last year's game (fs9) then why>can't MS produce some themselves??Frankly I am buffled that such questions are still asked since the answer is absolutely elementary. See how much this Portland scenery costs (as percentage of FSX), how many man-hours (forget the size of the compnay) it took to develop it and then hopefully it should become clear why Microsft could not take this route.Michael J.

As well as these valid comments, the first two images you suggest comparing have different view points, so it's not a fair comparision.Also there is an inevitable geometric problem at low level. Take any picture and look at it straight on. Then turn it through almost 90 deg and see how blurred it gets. In terms of Flight Simulator the effect is of displaying more picture pixels in the same screen pixel as the picture is rotated. Remembering that Flight Simulator views are created by overlaying a flat image of the ground over the terrain - the best description I read of this was to imagine sceneny printed on a fine silk cloth which is then draped over the contours formed by the terrain.

>>>beautiful. If a small company (i'm not sure how small it>>really is but I will assume it's much smaller then MS) can>do>>this with such great detail on last year's game (fs9) then>why>>can't MS produce some themselves??>>Frankly I am buffled that such questions are still asked since>the answer is absolutely elementary. See how much this>Portland scenery costs (as percentage of FSX), how many>man-hours (forget the size of the compnay) it took to develop>it and then hopefully it should become clear why Microsft>could not take this route.>>Michael J.>Think of how long ACES/MS had to work on FSX. Think of how much bigger ACES/MS is then flightscenery. Nevermind the price. It's the price that it should be for a smaller 3rd party developer. I am not expecting every airport in the world to look like this. I would however like to see at least a couple out of the box. Why settle for something that looks so bad in low-level flight when clearly it can look beautiful with the hard work that flightscenery does. Do you think that size of the company is irrelevant?? I hope you don't. Sorry if I forgot to mention that I wasn't expecting these add-ons for free.

>As well as these valid comments, the first two images you>suggest comparing have different view points, so it's not a>fair comparision.>>Also there is an inevitable geometric problem at low level.>Take any picture and look at it straight on. Then turn it>through almost 90 deg and see how blurred it gets. In terms of>Flight Simulator the effect is of displaying more picture>pixels in the same screen pixel as the picture is rotated.>Remembering that Flight Simulator views are created by>overlaying a flat image of the ground over the terrain - the>best description I read of this was to imagine sceneny printed>on a fine silk cloth which is then draped over the contours>formed by the terrain.Not a fair comparison?? I am not comparing anything. I am simply showing what I mean about this "blurred image" as I call it. There is absolutley nothing here to compare. Low-level flight graphics are horrible. I don't know if you read my entire post or not. I understand why it's awful. It's a satellite picture that we are flying over so it will look fine top-down view which most of flying is done. 90% of the flight is from top-down view because you don't fly 500-1000 feet cruising alt. How about when you make your descent though to see where you have flown to?? This is when you see that you have flown to a satellite picture and is zoomed in creating no sense of reality and no visual satisfaction. Fly however to Portland from say New York or anywhere in FS9 and everything but the departure will seem real (graphics-wise).I am not saying this is easy by any means. I am not expecting MS to just come out with all these airports overnight. I am just looking into the future and very wishfully into the DX10 patch. I settle for best. If there is hardware/software out there that really make this game incredible then I want to experience it with the best graphics possible and the best graphics possible are clearly shown by the very fine work of Vauchez and his team at flightscenery. CH yoke/pedal/quadrant throttle + trackIR are superb. Mind as well at least fit this with 3d graphics such as FZ02. We just need more and I am willing to pay the price.If you think this problem is inevitable then you clearly didn't watch the video that I linked.

>>>>Think of how long ACES/MS had to work on FSX. Think of how>much bigger ACES/MS is then flightscenery. And then think of how much more is involved in creating a world wide flight simulator, in addition to a few detailed airports. It's overwhelming.You could spend years on just a few particular aircraft's systems, let alone trying to get a Garmin 1000 just to do a percentage of what the real one does, while not destroying frame rates at the same time. Same goes for reparing topography, navigation data-bases, and all the rest. ACES/MS is Not hundreds of people with un-limited expense accounts.L.Adamson

>>>>>>>Think of how long ACES/MS had to work on FSX. Think of how>>much bigger ACES/MS is then flightscenery. >>And then think of how much more is involved in creating a>world wide flight simulator, in addition to a few detailed>airports. It's overwhelming.>>You could spend years on just a few particular aircraft's>systems, let alone trying to get a Garmin 1000 just to do a>percentage of what the real one does, while not destroying>frame rates at the same time. >>Same goes for reparing topography, navigation data-bases, and>all the rest. ACES/MS is Not hundreds of people with>un-limited expense accounts.>>L.AdamsonI just think that this should be higher on their priority list then not on their list at all.

Sorry Dave, but I just don't think you're grasping what you are seeing in those screenshots. Clearly the authors have like everybody else, chosen compromises in their settings to offer reasonable frame rates. What you are seeing in those static shots of a moving image is exactly what a real pilot sees from the real pilots seat of a real airplane - the target focus is on runway, turning point or some other feature. Even from a hundred feet up, features on the ground can appear blurry and indistinct, caused by slant angle viewing, parallax, distance from the object, light angles, and of course the vibration and movement of the aircraft itself. While I grant you that these images show a degree of blur, blaming it on FSX and the developers is a little premature. They might just be crap screenshots. :)Suggest you try some experiments of your own. Ignore the autogen, set up the highest res you can (1m is the max in FSX by default, I believe, unless there are any specific areas at a higher resolution) turn up the mesh to 100% at 10m (you will need aftermarket mesh for this) and take some screen captures from 100-200 feet. use the `v` key ad the images are stored in the same folder that contains FSX.cfg, or you can access them through the pilot menu. Good enough? Now go back and do the same, but take video. Looks awful, flies like a brick in freefall.You simply cannot compare a still world with the motion-driven environment you het in flight simulation. If you ask the serious screenshot artists, they will tell you some of their secrets to taking good screenshots, and it involves setting up the sim in ways you would NEVER do if you wanted it as a dynamic gaming medium.I don't know how long you've been around flight sim, but you still have much to learn about making assessments and value judgments based on system limitiations, user choice and hardware limits. Allcott

>Sorry Dave, but I just don't think you're grasping what you>are seeing in those screenshots. Clearly the authors have like>everybody else, chosen compromises in their settings to offer>reasonable frame rates. What you are seeing in those static>shots of a moving image is exactly what a real pilot sees from>the real pilots seat of a real airplane - the target focus is>on runway, turning point or some other feature. Even from a>hundred feet up, features on the ground can appear blurry and>indistinct, caused by slant angle viewing, parallax, distance>from the object, light angles, and of course the vibration and>movement of the aircraft itself. >>While I grant you that these images show a degree of blur,>blaming it on FSX and the developers is a little premature.>They might just be crap screenshots. :)>>Suggest you try some experiments of your own. Ignore the>autogen, set up the highest res you can (1m is the max in FSX>by default, I believe, unless there are any specific areas at>a higher resolution) turn up the mesh to 100% at 10m (you will>need aftermarket mesh for this) and take some screen captures>from 100-200 feet. use the `v` key ad the images are stored in>the same folder that contains FSX.cfg, or you can access them>through the pilot menu. Good enough? Now go back and do the>same, but take video. Looks awful, flies like a brick>in freefall.>>You simply cannot compare a still world with the motion-driven>environment you het in flight simulation. If you ask the>serious screenshot artists, they will tell you some of their>secrets to taking good screenshots, and it involves setting up>the sim in ways you would NEVER do if you wanted it as a>dynamic gaming medium.>>I don't know how long you've been around flight sim, but you>still have much to learn about making assessments and value>judgments based on system limitiations, user choice and>hardware limits. >>>>AllcottThank you Allcott for the post. I have tried everything under the sun. Weeks before making this post I tried just what you said. I set extreme maximum settings for texture resolution and so on. Everything in scenery was maxed to the right and I still get this blurred flat image on the ground. I am not blaming anybody. I am simply stating facts. In low-level flight you get the feeling of flying over a picture. There is nothing wrong with that. It's just the way it is. You can't fly over a picture which is 2d and expect the objects (trees, houses, etc) to come up in 3d. This is what autogen is for and autogen does an ok job in my opinion for cities with a little altitude but is poor elsewhere. The problem is in FS you are flying over a satellite image. You get close to a satellite image and what's going to happen?? The resolution is going to decrease. What Vauchez does is use aerial photography and hand place his autogen. What Vauchez does is what I WANT (not so much expect) MS/Aces to do and my point is if a smaller 3rd party developer can make FZ:02 look so beautiful (granted with VERY hard long work) on FS9 then why can't MS/ACES do the same out of the box for a few airports for FSX?? I guess MS/ACES are simply putting out the simulation and scenery is totally up to 3rd party developers. Your comparison to real life and FS I quite honestly am not buying whatsoever. I have flown in real life and I don't see this blurry ground. Maybe we are on a different page when I refer to this blurryness if you will. I am talking about graphics here, very poor graphics. I can't expect to much more out of poor source satellite scenery. Like I said the scenery is fine with altitude because you are looking at it from top-down view. 2 dimensional. When you get at low-level flight this becomes blurred and loses its resolution. Default fsx scenery is 1m and that's the best its going to get. It's using satellite imagery and that's what it is. Only 3rd party can develop something 7cm/pixel which is texture res max.I have much to learn about making judgments?? Do you think that I don't have the game?? Do you think that I am just judging these pictures and no personal experience whatsoever?? I have this game and I see the exact same thing that these images show. The only good images I see is that of FZ:02 and it's using FS9!! Resolution is only as good as the source. You can't make a crappy source photo into something beautiful by just messing with settings and tweaking. I have yet to see anything good besides FZ01 and FZ02. FZ01 and especially FZ02 is beautiful low-level. The exact reasons I do not know but I do know that it doesn't use satellite imagery like FS default does instead it uses aerial photography and it takes advantage of the max res settings FS has to offer. Also autogen is hand placed. I think a lot of people are a really excited user of MS/ACES whether they realize it or not. They stand up to defend MS/ACES. I am not bashing them. They make a beautiful sim. I would just like it to look better and I feel like it can. Again, I can't say this enough. Low-level flight is the only thing I have a problem with. If you get some altitude everything is fine and it's going to have to be fine because they can't hand place autogen for every single house, building and tree in the world. If they could possibly do what Vauchez and his team did with FZ02 for some more airports and leave other airports for 3rd party then it would be great.I can understand people talking about how MS/ACES doesn't have the time to do what I request but I can't understand completley denying this low-res imagery and excusing it as what real pilots see. The bottom line here is aerial photography is better graphically then satellite. Satellite is fine for most of the world. However in low-level flying (landing/taking off) it doesn't cut it. Aerial photography with better autogen (hand placed, more detailed, more variety all based on this aerial photography) used in airports and surrounding radius would create a much more visually satisfying experience. Satellite imagery used for the entire world and every airport produces fine results when flying with altitude (top-down view) but when low-level flight comes in to play such as taking off/landing it just looks awful. The ground becomes a blurred low resolution image and the autogen doesn't do much to help out.

I have much to learn about making judgments?? Do you think that I don't have the game?? Do you think that I am just judging these pictures and no personal experience whatsoever?? I have this game and I see the exact same thing that these images show. The only good images I see is that of FZ:02 and it's using FS9!! Resolution is only as good as the source. You can't make a crappy source photo into something beautiful by just messing with settings and tweaking. I have yet to see anything good besides FZ01 and FZ02. FZ01 and especially FZ02 is beautiful low-level. The exact reasons I do not know but I do know that it doesn't use satellite imagery like FS default does instead it uses aerial photography and it takes advantage of the max res settings FS has to offer. Also autogen is hand placed.I agree with you Dave. You have every right (since you paid for the *&mn product) to make any judgment you see fit. No one is going to fool you with your eyes as much as they try to suggest otherwise.

Thank you Len. I am glad we have some decent posters here that see the whole picture (no pun intended).

Dave-something to try:On my machine-if I have any autogen at all enabled-the photo real textures blur up as the autogen is a drain on the machine/card.If I turn all the autogen off-then the photo textures become completely clear-and look so even down to about 100 ft.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Thank you Len. I am glad we have some decent posters here>that see the whole picture (no pun intended).Dave, I don't agree with Len most of the time, as he's become much to biased against FSX, but you are correct in some observations. Try what Geof has suggested. I generally use auto-gen -- off, and much prefer the look of photo-type city scenery this way. edit: additional info. It's hard to describe, but when in motion, the new photo textures of homes and streets (without auto-gen) provide a very real effect of flying low over these city scapes on approach. It's something that I like MUCH better than the way it was presented in FS9.L.Adamson

>Dave-something to try:>>On my machine-if I have any autogen at all enabled-the photo>real textures blur up as the autogen is a drain on the>machine/card.>>If I turn all the autogen off-then the photo textures become>completely clear-and look so even down to about 100 ft.>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgCan you post a screenshot. I don't think we are on the same page when we are referring to this blurryness. I am talking about the flat satellite imagery. There is no tweak that can fix what I am talking about. It's the satellite imagery. Crappy source input = crappy source output no matter what. In this case the input (satellite imagery) is fine with altitude and I think it was meant for that but at lower flight level it's awful with or without autogen on. Aerial photography with hand placed autogen = good for low-level flying. Satellite photography = ugly low-level flying no matter what tweak you do. I think the problem here is my use of words to describe what I am seeing. Look at the pics I posted. This better explains what I am talking about.

The screenshot forum is filled with shots I have posted using this technique-have a look there.To get the effect-you haave to turn antialising to highest level, anistropic on-and the highest slider values for texture size and resolution in fs. They stay razor sharp almost all the way down this way.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg