Fsau

FSX was the same using St. Maarten as its showcase. I understand your train of thought and tend to agree it would make sense to include the whole world but I find it curious that we have no evidence of it being true. I wasn't around during the development of FSX, maybe someone could enlighten me if they showed ONLY screenshots of St. Maarten pre-release as they are with Hawaii now?

This is a quote from Mathijs (Aerosoft) back in May this year in regards to "FS2012". The thread can be found here: http://forum.aerosof...45525-afs-2012/ Jah, why do you think they have only shown Hawaii and small GA up to this point? So close to beta there isn't even a hint that they have modeled the world, this is the only thing that makes me doubt it will be a global simulator. Even you, one of the most enthusiastic pro-fsx-successor posters here, are basically stuck with this word legacy to convince you otherwise. As soon as they show some heavies, or even a single screenshot of another continent I will jump on the bandwagon with you but as it stands I can't see how you can be so convinced that it will include the globe.

Not to dispute your point alain but this "all access pack" just unlocks the game for those who can't be bothered playing it through and unlocking it themselves for free, it doesn't offer anything new. Dirt 3 has a few tracks available only through DLC.

I've got no idea what you're going on about but this made me laugh.

Then stick with FSX and be happy or just keep b****ing about Flight and how much of a horrible failure it will be/is, whatever toots your horn.If all other things are equal then Flight surpasses FSX at least visually, regardless of development time, what more do you want?

Lighting, shadows, terrain mesh, textures, model detail... I see your point, I said it earlier in development, the changes are subtle but who cares? Which would you rather use?

LOL okay jah I'm not arguing that it will definitely be Hawaii only, just saying it's a possibility, that's all.

Thanks again Brandon, the attention to detail in your comparisons is amazing.

I see, this explains your dramatic reaction to my comment.It's good to be optimistic, but you are living in a dream world of your own making where Flight is exactly what you want it to be, whenever someone says anything that remotely contradicts your vision you snap out defensively. I also hope for everything you have mentioned here, but am able to take a step back and look at things objectively without trying to force the reality to fit my own desires.Unless of course you are hinting at knowing some inside info that I am not privy to, in which case... you know where my PM is ;)

You could remove the world and substitute it with a selective area and still remain a simming platform. Key word; could.I don't have any conclusions, what is your deal mate?

I'm well aware what it means jah, you aren't understanding what I am saying? Legacy does not mean retaining all aspects of previous generations otherwise there would be no change at all, and the line you quoted from Flight specifically mentions the simulation aspect and how they will not want to lose that legacy, I'm just saying that you can retain some legacy and still dramatically change a product.Funny how you jumped on the defensive and made this into a argument for or against when what I have said is clearly a real possibility, just as much as it being a fully upgraded FSX is a real possibility.

I know what it means, legacy of what though??? they have never stated that legacy refers to previous versions simulating the whole world or retaining ALL aspects of previous generations. Legacy could be referring to the simulation aspect only ie. not an arcade. It's just a possibility, like I said I hope they release a fully fledged global sim like most of us here.

It could be a small island based game with 50 odd missions and still retain a simulation aspect. This close to beta with the evidence we have at hand I'm beginning to think it might well end up Hawaii only. Hopefully not though.

Just another dummy release date no doubt.

Well this brings up an interesting point, I realize that FSX has all those credits but those are for liveries/logos, does the same apply for body shape?Where does it end? What about all the buildings used in scenery, does ORBX for example license every building they use (remember they include textures and architecture and in many cases logos)

It's mostly flat photoreal textures.

How does it work now? is every 3P aircraft out there now for FSX, FS9 officially licenced?

Thanks for stopping by.

Because this is the digital age, the standards and market has changed, taking 70-80% of returns for doing practically nothing would be ludicrous.Edit/ Sorry, re-reading your comment I see you meant the producer keeping 70-80% not the publisher. I don't think anyone is complaining about 30% commission, in fact it's quite reasonable.

Not entirely true, some games allow you to start them but wont allow saves without a connection to the server, which is just as debilitating as requiring a connection just to start the game. This is where off-line cracks have a legitimate use imo; if developers are going to screw over their user base by giving you a brick that can become a game when you have a connection then the community steps in to rectify their mistake.

The quality and quantity of textures and sound files are a big variable in the install size.

Wow... complete extortion right there, they must cater to a particular group to be able to operate at such high costs.

Funny you call bonchie a ###### defender and suggest taking an objective stance because I would take the above statement as a subjective defense of Xplane. Xplanes whole claim right now is that they are trying to recreate cities accurately from osm data, yet the result is extremely lacking as anyone can clearly see.What is it you mean when you say "quality of graphics is very good"? and at the end of the day does it really matter about "quality" if what you see out your cockpit is not convincing? The casual sim market is a race for immersion; the majority of users want to believe they are actually flying, have all the real world systems at their hands and be flying within a convincing world.This is why, at least for the time being I am in favor of land classes, because although it may not be completely accurate it creates a much more convincing illusion for the mind to believe.I see Xplanes current autogen placement system as a skeleton waiting to be fleshed out and it may grow into something truly impressive, time will tell, but in its current state it's not what I would call either quality or accurate.

Looks like every other sim out there.

LOL Fosters... yeah mate, crack a Fosters mate and throw another shrimp on the barbie mate ;)