frankla

I know people will jump on me again for saying this, as they did when I said Flight textures in pic 5 were blurry; Look at the top two pics of simmerhead's post that indeed shows Flight textures (look at the farm textures that are identical in both versions) are really blurry comparing to FSX shot.

It took him forever to rotate. What if he had to abort? Must have been one heck of long runway.

Screen shot 5 has no autogen buildings in flight and has a lot less trees. Is this their way of enhancing performance?

The houses look really good, but the autogen trees in those shots look so flat and leave a lot more to desire for.

How do you know if the tree coverage is better? Seems like they really scaled down the autogen coverage for, perhaps, performance reasons? Also I don't know why I am the only one that notices bad blurries in pic 5!!

Well I fly often and I don't see haze that way at all. Haze removes the opacity of scenery not blur it. In fact, notice in pic 4 that haze will hide the scenery enough that you couldn't tell if the textures are blurry or not. Put another way, scenery gets hidden in haze; not smudged. Also when hazy you can't see so far in the distance as you can see in pic 5. Unless my hardware can't keep up with my FSX set up, I get crisp textures even in hazy conditions. More importantly, when hazy, the autogen trees lose opacity and they do not, so vividly, pop out of a blurred texture as they do in that scene.I am not trying to start an argument here, but TO ME the textures in that pic are not as crisp as say textures from say Orbx FTX or even the other five other pictures. There are two possibilities for the blur that I can think of. Either the hardware is having a hernia rendering the scene or more likely they are, simply, using lower texture setting. I am not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic here or not, but I just realized I am not alone in noticing it. Rayan, on the third reply to the original poster also noted the blurries.

Why not? X-Plane has had slopping runways. no?

My problem is with pic number 5. Is it my imagination or are the farm textures way too blurry in that pic? They seem very low resolution for the distance. The low texture resolution makes the autogen trees not blend well and makes them so out of place.

Are those cloud shadows on the other side of the valley?

I hope they use the grass texture from pic 3 and use it around airports.

You are right. I must say it never crossed my mind. My apologies to Al and everyone else.Frank

Do we have to team up to play that game? Do we use our own rules or those of FAA?

I am amazed that you think this is about your writing. I could not care less about your writing. This is about being rude and offensive. I only responded to your offensive statement, calling a woman a "silly cow" for making what you mistakenly thought was a grammatical error. I found this hypocritical since you were playing fast and loose with your own grammar. So, when I mentioned that, as a professional editor, I thought that the woman's statement was correct, you insulted me by saying, "In case you really don't see what is wrong with saying 'that's why it's so fun', which is worrying if you are a professional editor..." You piled on more insults by calling anyone who thought the woman's statement was correct to be an uneducated 10-year old. I demonstrated to you that, in fact, the woman's statement was correct. Since you questioned my editorial abilities, I corrected more of your own grammatical mistakes. Realizing that this was getting out of hand, I apologized to you for seeming harsh. In response, you continued to insult me. You continually claim that my corrections are wrong, but you fail to explain why. Even after your insulting post, I tried to make light of it and move on, but you seem to be stuck in this argument. I just won't be part of this argument anymore because it is taking over the board and it's getting boring.

Don't bother explaining it. I will let you save face. Let's get back to bashing Microsoft. :( :(

Al,I do realize your earlier comment of silly cow was not directed at me and I should not have corrected you.I am sorry.Frank.

At first, I was a little ticked off at you calling someone a "silly cow" and now I am more ticked off at you for writing that anyone who thinks "It's so fun" is acceptable is an uneducated 10-year old. Some people think that "It's so fun" does not sound right. But it is grammatically correct. Since 1846, "fun" has been accepted as an adjective. If you are not a traditionalist who has accepted "fun" as an adjective, there is nothing incorrect about placing adverbs in front of adjectives. There are numerous uses of "so" that precede adjectives: "It's so lovely." "It's so gross." "It's so bad." Since you are so worried that someone like me works as an editor, I cannot resist finding more errors with your writing. In your explanation, I see several instances in which your writing is not grammatical. "I regard the forum as an informal conversational environment and write in such an appropriate informal fashion, thus I don't ever pull anyone up on a forum for doing similar,"It should not be "similar," but “similarly” because it is an adverb."Microsoft is a professional company and they are"Here you are switching from singular to plural in the same sentence. It should be “Microsoft is a professional company and is”"….one would assume that in employing someone to do voiceovers..."There should be a comma after “that” because it is a parenthetical phrase."Fun can be a noun, e.g. when describing a thing which provides amusement"It should be “that” instead of “which.” (Use "that" with restrictive clauses) "…there is no point in getting upset about it, because it is the way it is in that country"There should be no comma before “because.”

edited in next reply

What is wrong with saying "that's why it's so fun" ? I am a professional editor and I see nothing wrong with that "silly cow's" quote. I do have a correction for you. It should be "If I were at the controls," not "was at the controls."

The runway and sky textures are better in FS9. What is with the leopard skin texture of the runway in flight?

I 'd bet you are a heavy Iron flyer. Not everyone enjoys flying because they are mastering a complex machine or are mastering procedures. If that were true, a real life pilot would get quickly bored of his beloved C172 after few years of learning all there is to know of his plane. I dare to say that huge number of people, I included, fly for the spectacular feeling of flying and views offered from up above. Better graphcis creates the illusion of the views we seek. If you have any doubts about what I am saying, take a look at popularity of add ons such as ORBX, GEX, UTX, REX, Megascenery and all the other scenery add ons available for the hobby.

LOL..So why try to hold back. We need some insider comments. We won't tell anyone! :Secret:Since we are piling it up on MS, lets add that the landing gear wheels don't even move/roll in this video. They are sliders!! :(

Why Bill? LOL Are you embaressed on MS's behalf too? :(

And the reason for edit is....???? To make it look like sky from FS2000?

Once again I ask this; does anybody think the scenery comes close to FSX+ORBX? How can you enjoy this new game after you have been flying in FSX PNW? Ironically, for me ORBX approach in FSX was not a solution either. By the time ORBX gets to make areas I fly in, I will be in a nursing home. So with MS Flight having scenery like vanila FSX I am still in limbo.