Stathis1

Probably most. But in the test i did with the beta, and still doing, i have of course all off, except for automixture. And as i said, it is good. For default planes at least.

I've thought about that. I even searched a bit to find information on how to create scenery. Such a collaboration would be a bit difficult to be made, but it would surely be very nice.

And again, i urge anyone who hasn't read ms's press release right when beta started to go read it. When the beta became available and all could see that it is Hawai only e.t.c (cause leaks happen), ms gave a press release that stated how Flight would not include global coverage but smaller and more detailed areas e.t.c. Now these are facts.

I think these are 2 sentences that some people don't even see when they read them, cause they don't represent their view of Flight. KInda like the example with the Conquistador's ships that the natives supposedely couldn't see when they were in front of them cause they hadn't seen anything like it before. In this case ms not including global coverage but smaller detailed areas. Well, i wish Arwen, Spirit, and all these people that state otherwise are right. But looking at it with all the facts we have layed on the table, even by ms themselves, Flight will probably include seperate smaller but highly detailed regions around the world. Will it be fun flying in Flight? Yes! Will it be for the more serious simmer? No! It will be when the whole earth has been released, with atc, airliners, ai, e.t.c. And when will that be? in 10 years?Also i see some people that say that there are much more in Flight, but they cannot talk. Well, if they are part of the Beta, i think we already have seen what Beta has to offer. Some people went along and posted videos at youtube. If there were some options in the Beta that would reveal much more info, wouldn't you think someone would have leaked them by now?Yesterday i did a flight with my VA in Vatsim. In my country. And i enjoyed it alot. I won't be able to do this with Flight. And i admit, it will be tempting to spend money at the Flight store for unlocks, ms is aiming at that exactly, and maybe i will spend some money on it. But the real concern here is if ms delivers for the more serious simmer.

But in the situation of fs9 and fsx it wasn't about if those sims would have global coverage e.t.c. Anyway, a turning point in flight's history was at fs 2002 if i remember correctly when they integraded the ms combat sim graphics engine, and autogen e.t.c, and it didn't need a supermachine in order to run as was the case with fs2000. Now, what is the innovation with ms Flight? The live store? Because all i keep seeing is a dumped down version of what ms flight sims used to be.

So there is something more than we currently know about Flight? If you say yes, i guess you won't be violating any nda.

I guess spirit is like the ms advocate here, with a good sense though. The voice of opposition to all the negative comments e.t.c. And i do not doubt that Flight will be fun. But still, to all those people that keep saying how we don't know about the sdk and all that, which part of the words "There will not be an SDK for Flight at least in the foreseable future, and also that it will be small parts of the world, and no atc and airliners for now" don't you understand? I think these are official words. We were expecting something else from ms. Making Flight a starting point for a future full simulator was not one of these things, and people do not have any patience to wait years until the developers get their stuff straight, if by the way they will expand Flight beyond the quick profit theme that it has now.So, no offence to anyone, i understand what spirit is trying to say, but it is not about optimism here, it's about the things we know. And we know enough to know that Flight is like a 5% complete flight sim.

Oh, and just to clarify some things, the worldwide economic or whatever else crisis, is affecting our flight simulator too. MS decided to go for the quick money, and did not invest in a big flight simulator with global coverage. They also decided to follow the current fashion of games that don't require much intellectuality, they just have big arrows telling you where to go e.t.c. They are aiming for the masses to gain quick profit. And that wouldn't be a bad thing had they made Flight with global coverage, and an sdk, e.t.c, to also satisfy us simmers. But instead they said that Flight will appeal to the hardcore simmers too. Yeah sure, without atc, without airliners, e.t.c. Bring these things to the table, long with global coverage and maybe an sdk and then we can talk about it.

I want to like Flight, but please explain to me:How would i like it if i will be flying over and over at Hawai?How would i like it in the lack of atc?How would i like it when i will possibly have to wait 1-2 years or maybe more to get an airliner and places to fly it?So yes, maybe it will be fun, nice and all, but what would i do with a better graphics engine and better flight physics when it's only in Hawai for now. And even if they already have made other small places ready for download, like let's say Switzerland e.t.c, still, it is a very little portion to fly to.I will tell you what i do not like: The total spit in the face at the people that have created vatsim and fly in it, people that create planes, liveries, scenery, and generally all those people that have made flight simulation something way more than fs9 or fsx was. Essentially ms is saying to all these people, "you dared make ms flight simulator something more? Now you crawl back to your caves and dream about vatsim, atc, planes, scenery, and all that stuff that you managed to built based on our simulator. It reminds me of the current worldwide situation, and in particular my own country Greece. Someone said "you dared defy our nwo, with your patriotism, religion, family values, now we crush you".What ms gave for decades to us flightsimmers, now it takes it all back. All in the light of "lets make quick money, who cares about their stupid atc and networks".And peope that are saying ms built it, ms can tear it down, it's wrong. You do not build something nice so that you tear it down later on. You try and preserve it, and improve it.

So, i tried the beta, and i wanted to learn it, and customise it before saying that i don't like it cause i didn't give it a fair chance, and all that i have seen in some reviews here and there.So, i have played it for around 1 hour until now, not much i know, and in that time i got the joystic hat switch to work properly, familiarised my self with the controls and all, and flew around with 3 planes. I initially set graphics to high, meaning lots of objects, antializing, HDR e.t.c, but found out that i wasn't getting good frames. So i went and started to tweak the rendering options, and now i have trees at overgown (i like trees ;D), objects at the middle setting, anisotroping at 8x and antialising at 2x, plus HDR with the first antialiasing option and traffic at the Kansas suberbs option. With these settings i get very good fps (don't know where to see them but it is smooth), and it's making flying a lot more fun. I have to say though that some option, and i don't know what it was, really made the difference with fps. Maybe it was the number of objects, or antialising, but anyway. I have an i7 at 2.8ghz, 12gb ram, and gtx 560 ti. With this rig i run fsx with many addons, like orbx, rex, e.t.c, at almost highest settings. The resolution is at 1920x1200. X-plane 10 seems more demanding, but then again it probably has a lot more objects and autogen population, so that must make the difference.Overally, i liked it. But of course there are things that i liked and other that i didn't. So, first the things that i like:- I like the way the planes fly. I won't go into which is more realistic, as i am not a real world pilot, but from the things that i have read i hear it's realistic enough, and of course i haven't tried any addons like carenado e.t.c.- Nice lighting overall, but it could be better, i don;t know if it is the HDR setting, but anyway. Does enb work in x-plane, and is it imporving it? Night lighting is very good also.- Slopped runways, what more could i say. The plane actually slows a bit down when the runway is a bit uphill. That is nice. Is it realistic? Again,i am not the one to say, but i like it.- Highways! Boy, i love the highways in x-plane. You can go close at 20-30 feet and the graphics are good, the vehicles are nice, there are highway signs e.t.c. Surely a major upgrade from fsx roads. I even tried landing in one, but hit the curve I shall try again.- Vehicles. For some reason i like them. Haven't really noticed if they are better looking than fsx ones, but i like them. Especially the trucks :D.- The clouds. They are nice. Not as in rex but stll very nice.And now on to the things that i don't like, but i guess most of them can be improved.- Residential areas. They can be improved. They are too much patterned all around. In comparison with orbx's sceneries, they are like night and day. But surely there is room for improvement.- Trees. I like the forests and all, but the trees up close show their square textures. Of course i know, complex trees mean less fps. But i think that ms flight has better looking trees, of course i could be wrong. Overall the forests are nice though.- The general landscape. As it has been said, it is repetitive all around. If it is in Itally or Greece as it is at Washington state, then it cerntainly needs improving. Even default fsx had different landscapes, versatility, and more accurate scenery around the world.- Planes. The default planes are not that good, at least in terms of vc cockpits. But there are the payware ones of course.Now these are some things on top of my mind. One of the major reasons that i am not buyng it yet, are the landscapes. It needs work. Maybe lot's of work in this department. I am both an IFR and VFR pilot. And although in IFR it isn't of that concern, in VFR landscapes are everything. If they are repetitive, and things are not where they should be, then it's not that good for VFR. Of course it can be improved. For fsx there is scenery tech which places villages, towns, lakes e.t.c where they should be. I don't really know how these things are in x-plane.What is nice is that it has potential, and is constantly being improved. I would like to contribute at this improvement at some point. Overall it is a good sim, and i am watching it's development up close. I often open up the beta and fly around exploring x-plane.

Common people, don't be harsh, we all are looking for the next flight sim in a way or the other, so it's ok going back and fourth the forums, and trying new platforms, x-plane, and p3d, and sharing our experiences. Only good can come out of it. We all want the same thing, a good flight simulator, and we should all work for this, either it is x-plane or p3d or whatever. It certainly isn't going to be Flight, at least for now.

FSX with rex, orbx, and other nice sceneries, pmdg, ifly, realair, carenado, and other nice aircraft, enb for lighting, ground enviroment X, fs global, plus many more, is nothing compared to default fsx. Of course in order to buy all these things you need lot's of money, yet again it would be around the price of p3d. Of course no directx 10 or 11, but still wilth all these things it's a darn nice simulator. Have a flight at orbx pnw or New Zealand with rex, enb, and your favorite plane and tell me that it isn't good. It could be better yes, but for many of the things we like, p.e IFR flights, vatsim e.t.c it is very good. Even for VFR with good sceneries, but of course we all waited for Flight and it's new engine and improved graphics e.t.c for VFR flights, but it ain't happening, cause i wanna fly anywhere in the world. So, at least for now fsx covers this as well. Now, if it only had the roads and highways like x-plane 10 has, it would be great!

I still can't believe they spend 3 years building Hawai!So, anyone knows how to create a graphics engine? Maybe we should go with xpx and populate it with scenery e.t.c?

In fsx beta we all knew it would have global coverage, and why woudn't it? So people Just expected the final version so that they would go and enjoy their flights, regardless of the bad code cpu hungry and all. In Flight we know it is going to be only Hawai and other small areas around the world don't we?

The difference between fsx and Flight is that fsx has global coverage. Even if an sdk becomes available, what would 3rd party developers do with it? Design the rest of the world?And again, as i have stated in another thread, this is 2012 and you would expect Flight to have global coverage with at least the graphics that it currently has (even if the ground textures are raw and the landclas is like fsx), allowing users to fly for example in Vatsim, VAs e.t.c.Even if they release an sdk and global coverage in a very raw format, it would probably take long for 3rd party developers to create something modern and good out of it. And in the meantime you will have simulators and games that have graphic engines far superior than they already do, which are better than what Flight has to offer.Someone would say that if Flight was to have global coverage and graphics like that e.t.c it would be like 500GB or more. Well i wouldn't mind. And i guess most of us wouldn't. People already have 1 or multiple 1 terra hardrives. Meaning lot's of GBs to spare.